Judgment :- Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 is filed to order an enquiry as required under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) against respondents for the of fences punishable under Sections 193 and 195, I.P.C. Crl.M.P. No. 2274 of 1997 is filed by the petitioner under Section 389, Cr.P.C. praying to suspend the sentence imposed on him in Sessions Case No. 259 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, and to release him on bail pending disposal of the appeal in Crl.A. No. 20 of 1991 in this Court. 3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of these two petitions, are the following: The petitioner was an accused in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. On trial he was found guilty under Section 302,I.P.C. Accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence he filed appeal before this Court which was registered as C.A. No. 20 of 1991. In the said appeal he filed Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991 seeking suspension of sentence and his release on bail pending disposal of the appeal. This court passed an order on 13. 1991 in the aforementioned Crl.M.P.982 of 1991 granting bail to the petitioner subject to the conditions viz., (i) the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.5,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Madurai, and (ii) the petitioner should stay within the limits of Trichy Town and report at the Containment Police Station daily at 10.00 A.M. until further orders. .4. Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 was filed by the State through the Inspector of Police, Z-1 Ommachikulam Police Station, Madurai District, to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner on 13. .4. Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 was filed by the State through the Inspector of Police, Z-1 Ommachikulam Police Station, Madurai District, to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner on 13. 1991 in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991, stating that the petitioner did not comply with the condition attached to the bail order in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991; while he was so on bail, the petitioner got himself involved in a murder case concerned in Crime No. 261 of 1995 on the file of Othakadai Police Station for alleged of fences under Sections 147,148,452,302 and 149 I.P.C.; the petitioner got involved in a case in Alanganallur Police Station Crime No. 226 of 1996 for alleged of fences under Sections 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act in which case he was released on bail by the learned Special Judge for E.C.Act and N.D.P.S. Act cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P. No. 1445 of 1996 on 28. 1996 with a condition that he should appear before the Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station twice a day. It was alleged that the petitioner did not report to the police station even for a single day. A Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 and cancelled the bail granted in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991 dismissing it by the order dated 1. 1997. 5. It is thereafter Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 was filed as already stated above, to hold enquiry against the respondents in the petition under Section 340, Cr.P.C. for the of fences said to have been committed under Sections 193 and 195, I.P.C. Crl.M.P. No. 2274 of 1997 is filed under Section 389, Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai, and to release him on bail pending disposal of the appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 20 of 1991 on the file of this Court. These are the two petitions which are to be considered and disposed of now. We may also mention here itself that Crl.M.P. No. 1839 of 1997 was filed to suspend the sentence passed in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 aforementioned and to release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the appeal in C.A.20 of 1991. These are the two petitions which are to be considered and disposed of now. We may also mention here itself that Crl.M.P. No. 1839 of 1997 was filed to suspend the sentence passed in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 aforementioned and to release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the appeal in C.A.20 of 1991. The said Application Crl.M.P.1839 of 1997 was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court on 25. 1997. 6. The petitioner and his father-in-law, viz., S. Paramasami have filed affidavits in support of Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1997 in C.A.20 of 1997, stating that the counter affidavit filed in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 may be read together along with the affidavits filed in this petition. In short and substance they stated that the petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur Police Station under Section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act; so also he was falsely implicated in Crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakadai Police Station. It is denied that the petitioner has been absconding in that case as stated by the Inspector Ayyanar in his affidavit. The petitioner was taken into custody in the N.D.P.S. case and was released on bail on 28. 1996 which fact was known to the same police of ficer who got the bail granted to the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991 canceled by filing affidavits containing false averments. The petitioner being an illiterate agriculturist was not aware of any conditions imposed in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991. .7. It is further submitted by the petitioner and his father-in-law that subsequent to the order dated 1. 1997 made by This court in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996, copies of relevant documents filed in Crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakadai Police Station from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District were obtained which will establish the ill-will borne by the respondents against the petitioner and their consequent mala-field action to foist false case against the petitioner, and use the same for swearing to false affidavits in proceedings before this court for cancellation of his bail. In the first affidavit filed by the father-in-law of the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 it is stated about the foisting of N.D.P.S. case in Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur Police Station resulting in the suspension of concerned police of ficers for their misconduct in that case. 8. It is further stated that on enquiry from the clerical staff of the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, it is gathered that till date, the properties i.e., 93 bottles of Ginger buries containing 500 ml., and 5 kg. of Ganja said to have been seized in the said case on 27. 1995 have not yet been received in that court, though the accused were produced and remanded to Judicial custody eight months ago. In Crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakkadai Police Station, copy of the affidavit of M.Nataraja Nadar father of the deceased Muniappan, filed in Crl.M.P. No. 436 of 1995 in the C.M.M. Court, Madurai on 28. 1995, is obtained in which it is prayed for taking action regarding false implication of persons from Madurai leaving out the real culprits who were residents of Gandhi Nagar, Othakadai. Thus the respondents, knowing about the fabricated F.I.R. in Cr. No. 261 of 1995 in Othakadai Police Station and also foisting of the case in Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanaglannur Police Station, and consequent action against the police of ficers suspending them, have not hesitated to make use of the fabricated records by swearing to false affidavits in the proceedings in Crl.M.P. No. 370 of 1996 before this Court. Thus, on the basis of these statements Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 is filed for taking action, as stated above. 9. The respondent No. 1 hasfiled common counter affidavit in Crl.M.P.Nos.1389 and 1840 of 1997 stating that he was the Inspector of Police, Ommachikulam Police Station, and now he is working at the District Crime Branch, Madurai District; he had filed affidavit in support of Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 filed for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner and as such he is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; hence the counter affidavit is filed. .10. .10. In the said common counter-affidavit it is further stated that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of bail imposed by this court in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991; and that the petitioners was subsequently involved in Alanganallur Police Station Crime No. 226 of 1996 under Section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act and Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Hence he (respondent No. 1) approached this Court in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. 11. In addition to his affidavit, Ayyanar Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station filed an additional affidavit stating that the petitioner committed an of fence on 17. 1995 concerned in Cr. No. 261 of 1995 of that police station for the of fences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302 and 149, I.P.C., and that the charge sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Melur on 27. 1996, and that the accused was arrested on 22. 1997. After hearing both sides, this court was pleased to observe that the factum of the accused getting himself involved in the aforesaid criminal cases has been particularly admitted by the accused/petitioner in the counter affidavit filed on his behalf, and cancelled the bail earlier granted to the petitioner. It is denied that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid cases registered in Othakadai Police Station ad Alanganallur Police Station. 12. The respondent No. 1 has further stated in his affidavit that he has perused the case diary of Othakadai Police Station in Crime No. 261 of 1995; it is seen from the F.I.R. in that case that the case was lodged by one Natarajan Nadar father of the deceased in that case; both in his complaint as well as in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the said Natarajan has implicated the petitioner, and after investigation the Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station has filed final report on 27. 1996 which is now pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur in P.R.C. No. 2 of 1997; the petitioner was arrested on 27. 1996 in connection with Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur Police Station, and that till the filing of the affidavit on 10. 1996 the petitioner had not complied with the conditions imposed by the Special Court. 1996 in connection with Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur Police Station, and that till the filing of the affidavit on 10. 1996 the petitioner had not complied with the conditions imposed by the Special Court. It is further stated that it is open to the petitioner to raise his defence at appropriate stage before the trial court and it is premature at this stage to consider his defences. Under these circumstances the respondent No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the applications made in Crl.M.P.Nos.1839 and 1840 of 1997. .13. Shri A.A. Selvam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail granted in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991 could not be cancelled by allowing Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 even exercising inherent power of the High Court when such a provision was not made even after amendment to the Code unlike in bailable cases. He elaboraely made submissions by citing a decision of the Supreme Court. We do not think it appropriate for us to sit in Judgment over the order passed by the other Division Bench of this Court on 1. 1997 cancelling the bail in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he has to pursue his remedy in accordance with law before the Apex Court. 14. We do not think it appropriate for us to sit in Judgment over the order passed by the other Division Bench of this Court on 1. 1997 cancelling the bail in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he has to pursue his remedy in accordance with law before the Apex Court. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the contentions raised in Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. urged that, the affidavit is filed by one Inspector respondent No. 1 alone; he could not file affidavit in regard to other crimes of other police stations i.e., Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur police station and Crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakadai Police Station; more so when the petitioner was falsely implicated in those crimes; in the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, there has been deliberate suppression of the fact that the concerned police of ficers were suspended for filing a false case in Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur police Station; the petitioner never absconded; in the N.D.P.S. case in Crime No. 226 of 1996 even after several months lapsed the properties were not produced before the court; even in Crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakadai Police Station, the petitioner was falsely implicated; the respondent No. 1 filed Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 making false statement that the petitioner did not observe the conditions of bail after a period of five years; under the circumstances, the petition Crl.M.P.1840 of 1997 may be allowed, and the sentence imposed on the petitioner in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Madurai be suspended and be be enlarged on bail as prayed for in Crl.M.P. No. 2274 of 1987. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on some decisions in support of his submissions. 15. On the other hand, Shri Shanmugasundaram, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioner was convicted on 212. 90 in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 on the file of Sessions Court, Madurai and was sentenced for life imprisonment; he was granted bail on 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on some decisions in support of his submissions. 15. On the other hand, Shri Shanmugasundaram, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioner was convicted on 212. 90 in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 on the file of Sessions Court, Madurai and was sentenced for life imprisonment; he was granted bail on 13. 1991 by this Court in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991 in C.A. No. 20 of 1991 filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 259 of 1989; he was arrested in another case in 1996 again; affidavit was filed by the respondent in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 on the basis of the available material to cancel the bail; after hearing both the parties the said petition was allowed and the bail was cancelled on 1. 1997; consequently the petitioner was arrested again on 22. 1997 at Dindigul; Crl.M.P. No. 1839 of 1997 filed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail was dismissed on 25. 1997. 16. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out to paragraph 9 of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1. 1997 made in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 showing the grounds made out for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. In the said order the Division Bench of this court has noticed that while the petitioner was on bail he got himself involved in two cases in Crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakadai Police Station and Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur Police Station. He also submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the said order, prima-facie accepting the affidavit of respondent No. 1, passed the order even after taking note of the counter affidavits filed in that petition, and after hearing both the parties. He also submitted that the respondent No. 1 could file the affidavit based on the documents and the information available to him; merely because he filed affidavit in regard to other crimes registered in other police stations based on the records and informations, it cannot be said that the respondent has made false statements or fabricated evidence so as to take action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It may be open to the petitioner to take all defences available to him during trial of the cases pending against him. If the Courts come to the conclusion in regard to the other two crimes mentioned above, during the course of the trial, that the respondents made false statements or fabricated evidence in a judicial proceedings, or that the petitioner makes out such a case, action could be taken appropriately at that stage. 17. Reacting to this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that action can be taken under Section 340, Cr.P.C. at any stage of the proceedings and it is not necessary that one should wait for completion of trial or termination of the proceedings. 18. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 19. Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 is filed with a prayer to hold enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondents saying that the respondents are liable to be punished for the of fences under Sections 193 and 195 of I.P.C. In the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner took us through Sections 191 to 195, I.P.C. Section 193,I.P.C. prescribes punishment for giving false evidence. It states, whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of judicial proceedings, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to seven years, and shall also be liable for fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. Sec.195 of I.P.C. has no application to the case on hand having regard to the averments and allegations made in the petition. 20. Section 191 of I.P.C. states as to when one is said to give false evidence. Whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Sec. 192, I.P.C. explains as to when one is said “to fabricate false evidence.” 121. As can be seen from the order dated 1. Sec. 192, I.P.C. explains as to when one is said “to fabricate false evidence.” 121. As can be seen from the order dated 1. 1997 made by the Division Bench of this Court in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996, bail was cancelled on the grounds that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed for enlarging him on bail in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991; he was involved in two other criminal cases in Crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakadai Police Station and Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur Police Station, reference to which is already made above. The grievance of the petitioner is that the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 in respect of the aforementioned two crimes of other police stations in which the petitioner is falsely involved, itself amounts to giving false statement when the other concerned police of ficers have not filed affidavits; there was purposeful suppression of the fact that the concerned police of ficers were suspended for involving the petitioner falsely in Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur Police Station; and that the petitioner never absconded. .22. The affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 is stated to be based on the records, diaries and information referring to specific Crime Numbers of the two other police stations. Merely because the concerned police of ficers of those police stations have not filed affidavits, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 could not gather information as investigating of ficer, and file a petition for cancellation of bail in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 when the petitioner did not observe one of the condition of bail granted in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991, with which case the respondent No. 1 was concerned, as that case arose out of his jurisdiction. It cannot also be said that affidavits cannot be filed based on information. Further it was for the Division Bench of this Court to act upon or not to act upon, or accept or not to accept, the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 in support of Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996, or to direct the concerned police officers in crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakadai Police Station and Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur Police Station to file affidavits, before passing the order in the said petition on 1. 1997. 123. 1997. 123. If a false statement is made knowingly that the information was wrong, the position would be different. As observed by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 1. 1997 in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 the involvement of the petitioner in two other criminal cases is not disputed. Whether the petitioner is falsely implicated in those cases is a matter that has to be examined essentially during the course of the trial. Non observation of the condition of bail granted in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991 cannot also be said to be false as the petitioner himself in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 has stated that he being an illiterate agriculturist was not aware of any condition imposed in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991, and that it may be condoned for nonobservance of the condition of bail. He has further stated that he would abide by any such condition which may be imposed while dismissing the petition filed for cancellation of bail. .24. Suppression of information that the police of ficers were suspended for falsely involving the accused in Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur police station, in our view, does not fall within the meaning of either section 191 or Section 192 I.P.C. so as to say that the respondents are guilty of either giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence. Plain reading of the said provisions does not indicate that suppression of information amounts to giving of false evidence or fabricating of false evidence. Under these circumstances, at this stage, on the material placed before us, we are not inclined to act under Section 240 of Cr.P.C. and we are not of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any of fence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195. It is open to the petitioner to take the available defence to him in the cases filed against him and to establish, if so desired at a subsequent stage, that the respondents are guilty of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence in the proceedings. 125. We are conscious of the legal position, that action can be taken under Section 340 Cr.P.C. at any stage of the proceedings. 125. We are conscious of the legal position, that action can be taken under Section 340 Cr.P.C. at any stage of the proceedings. It is not on the ground that action cannot be taken till the trial is completed that we are refusing to act under Section 340 Cr.P.C. but we are not doing so now, for the reasons mentioned above. We do not think it necessary to refer to the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as we have arrived at the conclusion on the facts of the case on hand and there is no quarrel as to the principles enunciated in the said decisions. 126. Under these circumstances, having looked into all aspects and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997. It is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. 127. As far as Crl.M.P. No. 2274 of 1997 is concerned, in our opinion, no relief can be granted in the view we have taken in Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 and have dismissed it, and in view of the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 cancelling the bail by the Division Bench of this Court, and dismissal of Crl.M.P. No. 1839 of 1997 by another Division Bench of this Court. Hence Crl.M.P. No. 2274 of 1997 is also dismissed. We make it clear that this order of ours dismissing Crl.M.P.Nos.1840 of 1997 and 2274 of 1997 does not come in the way of the petitioner to pursue his remedy if so desired against the order dated 1. 1997 made by the Division Bench of this Court in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996, and to ray release of the petitioner on bail before the Apex Court. 128. Before parting with the case, we observe that having regard to the fact that Crl. Appeal No. 20 of 1991 was filed about six years back, the petitioner once having been released on bail on 13. 1991, and having been re-arrested on 22. 1997 pursuant to the order dated 1. 1997 made by this Court in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996, it is open to him to pray for expeditious hearing of the said appeal C.A.20 of 1991.