Jadhao & Ors Vs. Second Additional Sessions Judge Buldana & Anr 
INSC 15 (4 January 1996)
Agrawal, S.C. (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 AIR 929 1996 SCC (1) 753 JT 1996 (1) 38 1996 SCALE (1)32
O R D
this case we are concerned with the notice issued by the Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Buldana, on December 3, 1990 to the appellants for prosecution
under sections 194 and 195, I.P.C for alleged fabrication of the record and
setting up a case said to be false against two ladies, Jamman and Laxmi said to
be aged about 60 and 80 years respectively. The Additional Sessions Judge had
stated that they are infirm persons; unable to walk and stand without the
support of others. Consequently, it would be difficult to believe the version
of the police that they pelted stones and kicked the police officers while the
latter were discharging the official duty in apprehending Latur Hasan.
setting aside the charges framed against them, notice was issued under section
340, Cr. P.C. for prosecution of the appellants under sections 194 and 195,
seen that the observation made by the Sessions Judge, as confirmed by the of
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in the impugned judgment dated 10.3.1992 made
in Criminal Application No.20/91 is based on 161 statements recorded during the
investigation. Admittedly, no evidence has been recorded. The court Should not
come to the conclusion on the basis of 161 statements which are not evidence.
It can be used at the trial only for contradictions or omissions when the
witness was examined.
could be contradicted by looking at the physical features of the witnesses even
before they are examined. The Additional Sessions Judge had discharged them
concluding that the police officers had fabricated the record. It would appear
that the learned Sessions Judge had overstepped his jurisdiction in recording a
finding, while looking at the physical features of the accused, that the police
had fabricated the record. The High Court has also not properly considered the
matter while going into the question regarding discharge of the accused for
other offences. Under these circumstances, we hold that in view of the finding
recorded by the Sessions Judge of fabrication of the record and that the case
is false one, issuance of notice under Section 340, Cr.P.C. is wholly
unjustified. The said order of the Sessions Judge is accordingly quashed.
appeal is accordingly allowed.