Important Perjury Citations
Laxminarayan Deepak
Ranjan Das vs K.K. Jha And Ors. on 16 April, 1999
Section 340. of the Code incorporates
following principles :
(i) Only cases where Courts, on objective
consideration of the facts and circumstances are of honest belief and opinion
that interests of justice require the laying of a complaint, should form
subject of an enquiry.
(ii) Conducting preliminary enquiry or
dispensing with it is not mandatory, but is discretionary.
(iii) A proceeding under the provision is an
independent and different proceeding from that of the original sessions case.
(iv) The proceeding being penal in nature,
in accordance with principles of natural justice the accused should be issued
show cause notice to afford a reasonable opportunity to establish by adducing
oral arid documentary evidence that it is not expedient in the interest of
justice to prosecute him.
(v) As a condition precedent to filing a
complaint; the Court should record a finding that it is expedient in the
interests of justice that an enquiry should be made….
(vi) The provision to record a finding is
not merely discretionary but is mandatory, for, an appeal lies against the
order of the Court.
(vii) The order recording such a finding
must be a speaking one supported by valid and justifiable grounds to enable the
appellate Court to know the material on which the Court formed the opinion that
it was expedient in the interest of justice to launch a prosecution.
(viii) The language recording the finding as
contemplated under the provision must be such that it leaves no doubt that it
was a fit and proper case.
(ix) It is incumbent on the Court to give a
specific finding before making a complaint.
(x) The omission or failure to record a
finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to enquire into the
offence is not a mere irregularity curable under Sections 464 and 465 of the
Code as it goes to the root of the matter and the Court will have no
jurisdiction to file a complaint without recording such a finding.
8. Before an order is made under Section 340
of the Code there must be grounds of a nature higher than mere surmise or
suspicion for directing a judicial enquiry. Before the proceedings under
Section 340 to be instituted there must be direct evidence fixing the offence
upon the persons whom it is sought to charge either in the preliminary enquiry
or in the earlier proceedings out of which the enquiry arises. It is not
sufficient that the evidence in the earlier case may induce Some sort of suspicion
that these persons had been guilty of an offence but there must be distinct
evidence of the commission of an offence by such persons. A complaint under
this section should not be made against a person where the indications of his
guilt do not amount to anything more than mere suspicion.
10. As pointed out by
the Supreme Court in K.
Karunakaran v. T.V. Bachara Warner AIR 1978 SC 290: (1978 Cri LJ 339) in a
proceeding under Section 340(1) of the Code the reasons recorded in the
principal case, in which a false statement has been made, have a great bearing
and indeed action is taken having regard to the overall opinion formed by the
Court in the earlier proceedings. The only question at an enquiry under Section
340(1) of the Code is whether a prima facie case is made out which, if
unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offence
and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such
action. The party may choose to place all its materials before the Court at
this stage, but if it does not, it will not be, estopped from doing so later if
the trial of prosecution is sanctioned by the Court. An enquiry under Section
340(1) of the Code is in the nature of affording a locus paenitentiae to a
person and if at that stage the Court chooses to take action, it does not mean
that he will not have full opportunity in due course of the process of justice
to establish his innocence.
Sri Chand vs State Of
U.P. on 28 March, 2003
2. The first appeal
from order No. 46 of 1985 preferred under Section 83 of Lunacy Act read with
Section 341/195(4), Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 19-10-1984 passed under
Section 340, Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 285 of 1982 (Madan
Lal v. Sri Chand) was
finally disposed of by the District Judge, Azamgarh on 18-3-1983 where the
District Judge has observed that Sri Chand had filed a false affidavit
indicating that Madan Lal happened to be his real brother. On that aspect the
District Judge had indicated for issuance of show cause notice for institution
of a criminal complaint against him. The miscellaneous application No: 205 of
1983 has been originated from the said observation in respect of the alleged
false affidavit filed by Sri Chand before the lower Court. Undoubtedly Sri
Chand has filed an affidavit in Misc. Case No. 285 of 1982 which is allegedly
to be a false affidavit wherein he had averred that Madan Lal happened to be
his real brother whereas in another litigation regarding partitions of property
Sri Chand the appellant before this Court has made and categorically asserted
that Madan Lal is not his brother, that litigation was pending from much before
the instant proceeding in which the impugned order in question and the
cognizance of alleged false affidavit was noted on this aspect learned lower
Court took a view that Sri Chand has filed a false affidavit. Learned lower
Court has also made observations in the order dated 19-10-1984 that learned
counsel for Sri Chand had very humbly stated before the lower Court that he has
not done so intentionally with a view to gain something. However, learned
District Judge had viewed such averment of Sri Chand presented on affidavit
that definitely it was a false statement in the knowledge of Sri Chand and has
been viewed that Sri Chand has deliberately filed a false affidavit touching
his relationship with Madan Lal. Learned lower Court has also noted that Sri
Chand was not instrumental in drafting of the affidavit as it was got prepared
by the then learned counsel engaged in that case and Sri Chand had only made a
signature at the bottom of the plain paper and as a common litigant and he
could not make an attempt to peruse or he could not realise the necessity; of
perusing the entire contents of the affidavit. According to Sri Chand he had
simply put a signature under the affidavit in a blind folded manner without
making any endeavourance to know the contents. However, learned lower Court has
ignored these aspects in the matter and has viewed that such phenomena is
uncommon and has considered that it a fit case where criminal’ complaint was to
be filed against Sri Chand for filing false affidavit in the miscellaneous
case.
State: Represented By
Its … vs Baddepudi Penchalaiah, on 11 October, 2007
In the impugned judgment, the learned
Special Judge observed that PW.1 gave false evidence before the trial Court,
which is different from the version given by him before the Magistrate under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted for perjury
under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
In view of the admission and also in view of
the affidavit and the records now filed by the respondents admitting the fact
that the service record showed the date of birth of the petitioner as
12.7.1948, the respondent authorities are prima facie guilty of contempt and
perjury.
Considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has
attained superannuation after completing 60 years of service and has collected
retiral dues there is no point to initiate contempt proceedings and or perjury
proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. at this stage. However, it will be in the
interest of justice to direct the respondent Management to pay a cost of
Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner since he suffered at the hands of the respondents
authority for making false statement on oath. It is also directed that if the
retiral dues has not been released the same should be released within a period
of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This
writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction.”
Balshiram Rambhau
Awate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 1977
6. However, we are sorry to find that the
learned trial Judge having taken a correct view of the situation did not
proceed logically to issue notices to at least three of the prosecution
witnesses for having committed perjury. Two courses were open to him. He could
have taken action under Section 344 Cr.PC summarily and arranged to punish them
there and then. It was also open to him to hold a summary inquiry Under Section
340 (1) of the Cr.PC and decide whether a complaint should be filed. In this
regard the learned trial Judge has shown some inaction. We find that the Police
Patil and the Kotwal being public servants could not be allowed to run away
scot-free from the Court in spite of committing perjury. In the same manner
victim Damo- dar who has received several injuries at the hands of his brother
cannot play fast and loose with the Court. We are thus satisfied that it is
necessary to take action against these three witnesses for having committed the
offence of perjury. We would therefore hold a preliminary inquiry in that
behalf as contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section 340 Cr.PC
Baiju Kumar vs D.E.O.
on 10 July, 2003
9. The Manager has raised some new
contentions in the counter affidavit which he has not raised either in O.P. No.
14830/99 or before the Government. They are regarding the ineligibility
including financial position of the petitioner etc. Those contentions have been
raised as a result of an afterthought as a desperate attempt to sustain Ext.P5.
In those efforts, he has made conflicting pleas which may amount to commission
of perjury warranting an order under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. directing his
trial for perjury by the competent Criminal Court. In O.P. No. 14830/99, the
Manager has pleaded regarding the submission of the application by the
petitioner in the following manner:-
Jose Kuruvinakunnel
vs A.T. Jose on 6 December, 1996
3. The revision petitioner herein filed O.
P. (Misc) 7/85 before the Munsiffs
Court
4. After trial the Munsiffs Court Munsiffs Court
30. Therefore, it is clear that prosecution
can be initiated by resorting to Section 340 of Cr. P. C. only in cases where
it is expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute the party and prima
facie evidence is adduced in that behalf and the provisions of Section 340 of
Cr. P. C. cannot be resorted to lightly on the mere allegations, or to
vindicate personal vendetta.
29. In the decision
in Suntokh
Singh v. Izhar Hussain AIR 1973
SC 2190 : 1973 Cri LJ 1176 the Supreme Court observed as follows (Para 11):
Every incorrect or false statement does not
make it incumbent on the Court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise
judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it
determines the question of expediency. The Court orders prosecution in the
larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of
personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too
frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is
only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely
that the Court should direct prosecution.
Mahila Vinod Kumar I vs State Of Madhya
Pradesh on 11 July, 2008
7. This section introduces an additional
alternative procedure to punish perjury by the very Court before which it is
committed in place of old Section 479 A which did not have the desired effect
to eradicate the evils of perjury. The salient features of this new provision
are:
(1) Special powers have been conferred on
two specified Courts, namely Court of Session and Magistrate of the First
Class, to take cognizance of an offence of perjury committed by a witness in a
proceeding before it instead of filing a complaint before a Magistrate and try
and punish the offender by following the procedure of summary trials. For
summary trial, see Ch.
(2) This power is to be exercised after
having the matter considered by the Court only at the time of delivery of the
judgment or final order.
(3) The offender shall be given a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause before he is punished.
(4) The maximum sentence that may be imposed
is 3 month’s imprisonment or a fine up to Rs.500 or both. (5) The order of the
Court is appealable (vide S. 351). (6) The procedure in this section is an
alternative to one under Sections 340-343. The Court has been given an option
to proceed to punish summarily under this section or to resort to ordinary
procedure by way of complaint under Section 340 so that, as for instance, where
the Court is of opinion that perjury committed is likely to raise complicated
questions or deserves more severe punishment than that permitted under this
section or the case is otherwise of such a nature or for some reasons
considered to be such that the case should be disposed of under the ordinary
procedure which 7
would be more appropriate, the Court may
chose to do so [vide sub-section (3)].
(7) Further proceedings of any trial
initiated under this section shall be stayed and thus, any sentence imposed
shall also not be executed until the disposal of an appeal or revision against
the judgment or order in the main proceedings in which the witness gave
perjured evidence or fabricated false evidence [vide sub-section (4)].
8. For exercising the powers under the
section the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at
the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it
has either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated such evidence. The
second condition is that the Court must come to the conclusion that in the
interests of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it
for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness. And the
third condition is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment the
witness 8must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should
not be so punished. All these conditions arc mandatory. [See Narayanswamy v.
State of Muharashtra
Vittappan vs State on
9 April, 1987
10. A court directing prosecution for
perjury is not vindicating the grievance of any party. The action is mainly to
safeguard the prestige and the dignity of the court and to maintain the
confidence of the people in the efficiency of the judicial process. What the
court is mainly interested in is seeing that administration of justice and
dignity of the court is not flouted. The Sessions Judge did not specifically
find on which aspect the appellant gave false evidence and whether that
evidence was purposely made or whether it had any real impact on the decision
of the case. In fact he did not even consider whether any perjury was
committed. This is evident when he refused to express any opinion on that
aspect and said that what he is concerned under Section 340 is only to see
whether an enquiry is necessary or not. The only opinion formed by him for
filing the complaint is that interest of justice demands an. enquiry as to
whether the appellant committed the offence of giving false evidence in court.
I am of opinion that the Sessions Judge has not complied with the mandatory
provisions of Section 340 of the Code and filed the complaint after passing the
impugned order without the requisite satisfaction and without understanding the
legal provision correctly. In fact the materials make it clear that this is not
a fit case where it was expedient in the interest of justice to have an enquiry
under Section 340 of the Code much less a prosecution. The impugned order and
consequently the complaint must go.
Amzad Ali vs Marfat
Ali Biswas And Two Ors. on 11 June, 1998
Thereafter, the defendant respondent no.l
filed an application under section 340 Cr.PC before the Court of Munslf,
Lalbag, praying for lodging a complaint against the plaintifi* petitioner
alleging that the plaintiff petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly used as
genuine the aforesaid, deed of sale dated 10.3.38, knowing or having reason to
believe that it was a forged document and had thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 471 I.PC This application was registered as Misc. Case
No.34 of 1988 of the Court of Munsiff, Lalbag.
Mohanlal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
I am, therefore, convinced that it is time
that exploitation abuse and misuse of equitable jurisdiction is stopped, as
founding fathers never intended it to make it an “Allaudin’s lamp” for
providing protective umbrella to all inequitable evil geniuses and social
parasites. Anti-soqial dishonest and unjust litigants cannot use smoke screen
of ‘natural justice’ to perpetuate unnatural injustice. Tainted hands cannot be
allowed to touch pure fountains of justice.
Sardar Harjit Singh vs Sardar Ravel Singh & Ors on 1
January, 1800
TRUTH was the hallmark of the justice
delivery system which operated in the country till the establishment of the
court system under British rule. The people used to tell truth and truth only
without being influenced by its consequences. In the present day judicial system
the truth is perhaps the biggest casualty. Unscrupulous litigants like the
petitioners leave no stone unturned to mislead the quasi-judicial and judicial
authorities and the courts for material gains. The entire system has become
victim of such persons. In order to meet this challenge, the courts have
evolved new rules, strategies CS (OS) No.690/2005 Page 16 of 23 and techniques.
One such rule is that the court will not grant hearing to a person who does not
approach it with clean hands. To put it differently, a person who touches the
fountain of justice with the tainted hand or who makes an attempt to pollute
the course of justice by making false or misleading statements or by
suppressing facts must be shown the door at the threshold.”
Shiv Dan Singh vs
State Of Rajasthan
Mr. Khan wanted to show to me the record of
Order Book of the Police Department for the year 1948, in which at Section No.
188 it is mentioned that the enlistment of the petitioner was done and his age
has been mentioned as 20 years. However, it will be unnecessary to travel into
any other record, because I am convinced that the very bedrock and the
foundation of the allegation that the original entry was 29.11.27 is not only
incorrect, but further based on some inter-polation, which is visible to a
naked eye and is patent. Tainted hands cannot be allowed to touch pure
fountains of Justice.
S.P Chengalvaraya
Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993
The courts of law are meant for imparting
justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean
hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court
is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient
lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say
that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the
court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment