Mrs. Geeta Monga vs Ram Chand S. Kimat Rai and Ors. (Delhi HC) (Crl. M. 928/20041)
The above findings and observations of the learned Trial Court are not only mutually inconsistent but self-destructive because on one hand the learned trial court noted that the respondent has made a false/inconsistent statement and on the other hand, it has noted that the Court cannot take a notice of ''every falsehood sworn in the Court'' and the gravity of the false statement is not such which attracts the provisions of Section 340 Cr. P.C.
This Court is at a loss to appreciate such kind of approach the learned trial court. The mere fact that the respondent/defendant/judgment debtor has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge should not have dissuaded him from answering the application under section 340 Cr. P.C. on its merits. The whole approach of the learned Additional District Judge to such kind of issue cannot be approved. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot be legally sustained, as it has resulted into miscarriage ojustice.3.The result of the above discussion is that the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the board of the learned Trial Court for deciding the application under Section 340 Cr. P.C. afresh in accordance with law.