Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

about section 177 ipc

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 28 December 2011 This query is : Resolved 
Dear Sir
Kindly tell me about section 177 IPC.
1. Can I file a suit against a govt.servant who has changed his statement(BAYAN) given by him in a case as a witness in 2001 ,Now he has changed his BAYAN that was given by him in 2001in a property dispute case. Now he has filed a written reply in same property case but another dispute case 2010 ,In this reply he (govt.servant)has changed his BAYAN(his statement)that was given by him in case in 2001.
KINDLY suggest me about SECTION :1IPC 2. Crpc by which I can file a suit against him
OR
Can a person free to change his bayan(statement) one court TO another court ?
whether it is a conspiracy to defame a person who is opposite to him(govt.servant)
Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 28 December 2011
Mere change in bayan is not sufficient for perjury matters.
You have to show that the statements were false and made to defruad the court in his advantage.
prabhakar singh (Expert) 28 December 2011
yes! that is right.
Nadeem Qureshi (Expert) 28 December 2011
Dear Querist
read 177 IPC
Section 177. Furnishing false information


Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both;



or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.



Illustrations



(a) A, a landholder, knowing of the commission of a murder within the limits of his estate, willfully misinforms the Magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in consequence of the bite of a snake. A is guilty of the offence defined in this section.



(b) A, a village watchman, knowing that a considerable body of strangers has passed through his village in order to commit a dacoity in the house of Z, a wealthy merchant residing in a neighbouring place, and being being bound under clause 5, section VII, 1[Regulation III, 1821], of the Bengal Code, to give early and punctual information of the above fact to the officer of the nearest police-station, willfully misinforms the police-officer that a body of suspicious characters passed through the village with a view to commit dacoity in a certain distant place in a different direction. Here A is guilty of the offence defined in the later part of this section.



2Explanation



In section 176 and in this section the word “offence” includes any act committed at any place out of 3[India], which, if committed in 3[India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and the word “offender” includes any person who is alleged to have been guilty of any such act.






CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE



Para I



Punishment—Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by any Magis­trate—Non-compoundable.



Para II



Punishment—Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compound­able.


only change the statement is not an offence
feel free to call
Deepak Nair (Expert) 29 December 2011
Mr. Nadeem has cleared it sufficiently.


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :