Perjury section 191 ipc

Bal Kishan (Querist) 14 May 2013 This query is : Resolved
At the stage of framing of charge against me I raised objection that the investigation by IO suffers from illegality arising provisions of Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988 as investigation carried without acquiring mandatory written authorisation of police officer above the rank of S.P.

While replying to the objection the Public Prosecutor submitted in wiring before the Trial Court that the I.O. was authorised by SP vide some fictitious Endst No. 39 dated 16-4-2004 .. but did not produce the copy of the order before the Court, however court ignored the illegality and framed the charges stating that whether I.O. was authorised or not will be decided after examination of I.O. in the trial proceeding.

At no stage during trial, the prosecution made any effort to produce the said Endst No.and during cross examination , the I.O. ignored and failed to give any explanation for not enclosing the authorisation letter.

The Trial Court at the conclusion of Trial Proceedings in his judgement and order of my acquittal also stated in para 147 that it is an admitted fact that authorisation letter was not enclosed with challan by the I.O. and he failed and ignored to produce the same before the Trail Court and ordered that adverse inferences may be drawn against the I.O. under provisions of section 114 of Indian Evidence Act.

Now in an Crl.appeal the same I.O. deviating from his written submission before Trial Court has pleaded that written authorisation is not needed ..

Can I persecute the Public Prosecutor under Section 191 Indian Penal Code for making a false statement in the criminal proceeding as the PP very well knew that no such document as the Endst No. 39 dated 16-4-2004 existed..

The appeal by appellant CBI, apparently, is malafide to take no notice of the judgment of Trial Court that adverse inferences may be drawn against I.O. under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act ???????

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Nadeem Qureshi (Expert) 14 May 2013
Dear Querist
you can easily bear consultation fee of a Lawyer, consult in person

R.K Nanda (Expert) 14 May 2013
consult local lawyer.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 14 May 2013
The act and conduct of IO is definitely a criminal offence wherein he deliberately mentioned fictitious letter in his evidence on oath before the trial magistrate and the changed his version that the oral permission is also allowed. It shows that the earlier alleged letter which never was brought before either of the courts was wrongly and illegally claimed and this is an interference in the judicial system. Such corrupt police officials should be dealt vigorously an effectively.

File a criminal complaint against such police officer.

Bal Kishan (Querist) 15 May 2013
Thak You Raj Kumar Makkad Sir, Nanda Sir and Qureshi Sir...

I will pursue to its ultimate legal end.. for the CBI has done great and irreparable damage to my service career and social reputation. The acquittal by Special Judge after long trial proceedings vindicate my claim :-)