Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1792 (RAJ)

Magan Lal v. Shanti Lal

2009-08-07

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
TIWARI, M.—This is an application under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short, "the Act") read with Section 341 and 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that an application was filed bythe petitioner before Revenue Appellate Authority Pali under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the appellant Shanti Lal had filed a false affidavit in an appeal preferred before Revenue Appellate Authority committing, thus, an offence under Section 193, 196, 200 and 205 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). As such Revenue Appellate Authority was requested to lodge an F.I.R. before the competent judicial Court to prosecute the offender. Revenue Appellate Authority by his impugned order dated 31.8.2001 dismissed the application leaving the parties at liberty to take appropriate action before the competent authority or Court at their own level as the appeal stood already decided by the Revenue Appellate authority. 3. I have heard learned counsels of both the parties. 4. The learned counsel of the applicant has pleaded that in an appeal entitled 'Shanti Lal vs. Vishveshwar' pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority the appellant Shanti lal filed wrong affidavit that he did not know about the exact date of death of his own brother Himmta Ram and gave a false date of knowledge about death of Himmta Ram as 21.3.2000 whereas Himmta Ram actually died on 10.8.1999. This fact of death was in knowledge of Shanti Lal as he was present at the time of cremation of his brother. Though Revenue Appellate Authority accepted contention of the petitioner and found that Shanti Lal had filed a wrong affidavit but still he refused to prosecute the offender by lodging F.I.R. before competent Judicial Court on the ground that the appeal is no longer pending before him and was already decided. This is an untenable ground for rejection of the application filed before Revenue Appellate Authority. When a Court came to the knowledge that an offence had taken place in its Court by way of filing of false affidavit, the said Court should take appropriate remedial action to punish the offender. The learned counsel cited AIR 2003 SC 2723 , 1994 RRD 697, 2001(1) RLW (Raj.) 119 in support of his contention. 5. When a Court came to the knowledge that an offence had taken place in its Court by way of filing of false affidavit, the said Court should take appropriate remedial action to punish the offender. The learned counsel cited AIR 2003 SC 2723 , 1994 RRD 697, 2001(1) RLW (Raj.) 119 in support of his contention. 5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued that the application under Section 340 and 195 of the Cr.P.C. was not maintainable before Revenue Appellate Authority as no appeal was pending before him at the time of filing of the application. It was further contended that no action can be taken under Section 221 of the Act with regard to any decision taken under provisions of Cr.P.C. The appellant had conceded that it was a typing error by which knowledge of death of his brother was wrongly typed. As such there is no legal defect in the error of Revenue Appellate Authority. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the record available on the file. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 31.8.2001 of Revenue Appellate authority shows that he rejected the application filed before him under Section 340 and 195 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that this application was filed before him after the main appeal stood decided and closed in the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority. He left the parties at liberty to agitate the matter before the competent judicial Court on any other competent authority. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in this order. The citation AIR 2003 SC 2723 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply in this case, as the matter of the referred citation pertains to Contempt of Court's Act. The citation of 1994 RRD 697 also does not apply in this matter as the matter was brought to the knowledge of the court when the appeal was still pending before the Court and not decided; but in the case under consideration the matter was not brought to the knowledge of the Court when the appeal was still pending. The application was filed after the appeal was decided. The application was filed after the appeal was decided. 2001 CLRS 532 pertains to a matter of perjury committed in respect of citing of age of Chief Justice of India in a writ petition filed before the Supreme Court, the facts of this case are entirely different from facts stated in 2001 CLRS 532. 8. In addition to what is discussed above, it is worthwhile to mention here that an order passed on application under Section 341 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. does not attract any intervention under Section 221 of the Act which provides for the general superintendence and control over subordinate revenue courts. This is basically of the administrative nature. It can attract intervention in rare and extreme cases arising out of land laws where miscarriage of justice would result if not intervened in view of the fact no appeal or revision or any alternative remedy is provided for under the Act. Section 221 of the Act does not provide any platform to be used as an appeal of an order passed in an application under any provision of the Cr.P.C. Apparently, the order passed on an application filed under Section 341 read with Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable under Section 221 of the Act. 9. In view aforesaid discussion, there is absolutely no force in the application which is dismissed in limine. Pronounced.