harish
06 October 2011 at 15:40
DEAR SIR,
I need citation where these judgments are reported/books(AIR,etc).
Andhra High Court
State: Represented By Its ... vs Baddepudi Penchalaiah, decided on 11 October, 2007
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1585 of 2001,11-10-2007
State: represented by its Inspector of Police,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore.
Baddepudi Penchalaiah,
s/o. Subbaiah, Occ: Sarpanch,
r/o. Chintopu village, T.P. Gudur Mandal,
Nellore District.
Counsel for appellant: V. Ravi Kiran Rao, Sr.P.P. for ACB cases.
Counsel for respondent:
:JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Special Public Prosecutor representing the State against the
judgment of the Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases, Nellore, dated 20.09.2000 in C.C.No.10 of 1998.
2) The accused was tried for the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After full- fledged trial, the trial Court acquitted the accused by giving
the benefit of doubt. 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.
3) As per the procedure contemplated under Section 340 (1) of Cr.P.C. a complaint has to be filed by the
Presiding Officer against the witness, who committed the offence of perjury. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. reads as
follows:
"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.-(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or
otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made
into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been
committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if
any as it thinks necessary,--
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance
for the accused before such magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it
necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and
give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that
Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application
for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within
the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,--
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may
appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may
authorize in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this Section, 'Court' has the same meaning as in section 195."
4) The trial Court instead of following the procedure prescribed under Section 340 (1) of Cr.P.C., directed the
prosecution to take steps to file a complaint under Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C. before the Principal District
Munsif, Nellore. When the Section was very specific that the Presiding Officer has to file a complaint before
the Magistrate, the direction given by the learned Special Judge to the Prosecution to file a complaint is illegal
and it cannot be sustained.
5) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.10 of 1998 to
the extent of the direction given to the Prosecution to file a complaint against PW.1 is set aside. The trial
Court is directed to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to PW.1 by following the procedure u/s.340 (1)
of Cr.P.C. within one month from the date of appearance of PW.1.
_
--------------------------------
3. IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT
Vittappan vs State, Decided on 9 April, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987 CriLJ 1994
Bench: S Padmanabhan
S. Padmanabhan, J.
JUDGMENT
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.
---------------------------------------
Sardar Harjit Singh vs Sardar Ravel Singh & Ors
+ IA No.10911/2006 in CS (OS) No.690/2005, Reserved on: 2nd February, 2009. Decided on : 11th September, 2009
Reported: In Digest ????
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
JUDGMENT
36. 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.”
----------------------------------------
Thanking everybody
harish
06 October 2011 at 15:23
Dear sir,
I need Citation/repoter/books with page no.340 crpc reg...........
THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Balshiram Rambhau Awate vs The State of Maharashtra Decided on 23 March, 1977
Equivalent citations: 1978 CriLJ 821
Bench: Deshmukh, Aggarwal
JUDGMENT
Deshmukh, J.
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
-----------------------------------
3. IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT
Vittappan vs State, Decided on 9 April, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987 CriLJ 1994
Bench: S Padmanabhan
S. Padmanabhan, J.
JUDGMENT
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.
------------------------------
Thanking u........
harish
06 October 2011 at 00:06
DEAR SIR,
I NEED CITATION/REPOTER/BOOK WITH PAGE NO....... PLS IF ANY BODY PROVIDE....THANKINGU
High Court of Allahabad
Reserved
Criminal Revision No.6203 of 2006
Satendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another
Hon. A.K. Roopanwal, J.
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27.9.06 passed by the
Family
Court, Gorakhpur in criminal case no.340/03, Smt. Kanchan Gupta Vs. Satendra
Kumar
Gupta, under Section 125, Cr.P.C. whereby the court allowed the application and
granted maintenance of Rs.3,500/- p.m. to O.P. No.2 and Rs.3,500/- p.m. for her
son
from the date of the petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
It appears from the record that an application under Section 13, Hindu Marriage
Act was
moved by the revisionist against O.P. No.2 before the Family Court, Gorakhpur
and this
was registered as case no.54/03. The wife Smt. Kanchan Gupta also filed an
application
under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Satendra Kumar Gupta for her
maintenance and for the maintenance of her son and this case was registered as
case
no.340/03.
The case of the revisionist was that O.P. No.2 had neglected him and is not
taking his
care and therefore, their marriage be desolved by a decree of divorce. The Case
of O.P.
No.2 was that the husband had neglected her and her son and therefore, the
divorce
suit filed by the husband was liable to be dismissed and she and her son are
entitled to
maintenance. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of
their
cases. The trial court framed as many as six issues for decision of the case.
After
perusal of the evidence the trial court dismissed the application for divorce
which is not
the subject matter of this revision as the only prayer has been made before this
court is
about the maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. filed by the wife. The
application for
maintenance was allowed in the manner stated above which gave rise to this
revision.
I have heard Mr. Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. K.K.
Mishra for
O.P. No.2 and perused the record.
Mr. Gupta argued that the trial court has wrongly assessed the income of the
revisionist
and has also wrongly fixed the quantum of maintenance, therefore, findings in
this
regard are liable to be quashed. In this regard he argued that the trial court
based his
findings on the basis of that record which was subsequently found to be not
reliable by
the court itself and therefore, the above findings should be quashed and matter
be
remanded back to the
court for afresh decision. The above argument was refuted
by the
other side.
A look at the impugned judgment would reveal that the findings regarding the
income
and the quantum of maintenance have been recorded by the trial court on the
basis of
the record of the income tax assessments for certain years relied upon by the
wife. The
husband challenged the truthfulness of these records by moving an application
under Section 340, Cr.P.C. even during the continuance of the proceedings but
the
trial court decided the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. without deciding
the
application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. However, after the decision of the
application
under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on 27.9.06 the same court decided the application
under
Section 340, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 26.2.07. In the last paragraph of this
order it was
observed by the court that the judgment in case no.340/03 has been obtained by
the
wife on the basis of forged evidence. The application under Section 340, Cr.P.C.
was
allowed by the court and criminal proceedings were instituted against the wife
and
others. Learned counsel for the revisionist says that in view of the decision on
the
application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. judgment passed in the proceedings under
Section 125, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to stand and therefore, this should be
set aside.
Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 argued that the procedure adopted by the trial
court for
the decision of the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. is not a correct
procedure and
therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist
should not
be accepted.
In my opinion, it cannot be a valid consideration for deciding the controversy
between
the parties as to whether the procedure in initiating the proceedings under
Section 340,
Cr.P.C. adopted by the trial court was correct or wrong. The only consideration
for
testing the propriety of the judgment under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is as to
whether the
decision on the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. can be a valid
consideration or
not for deciding the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and in that regard
it can
safely be said that once findings recorded on the application under Section 340,
Cr.P.C.
have not been set aside by any competent court of law, hence, these findings are
binding upon the parties and in view of these findings this can very well be
said that the
evidence on the basis of which the wife got judgment in the proceedings under
Section
125, Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be a good judgment as this judgment is based on
that
evidence which has been held to be forged by that very court which had decided
the
proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, I am in agreement with the argument advanced by the
learned
counsel for the revisionist that the judgment and order passed in the
proceedings under
Section 125, Cr.P.C. registered as case no.340/03 are liable to be quashed and
the
matter is liable to be remanded back for afresh decision.
Accordingly, revision is allowed. Judgment and order dated 27.9.06 is set aside
so far
as it relates to the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. registered at case
no.340/03. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for afresh decision on
the
basis of the evidence on record. The parties may be allowed to lead fresh
evidence, if
they so like.
Dated:22.2.08
T. Sinha.
harish
05 October 2011 at 23:36
Dear sir,
Need citation, 340 crpc, Perjury Citations
1. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002, Decided On: 03.12.2009
Appellants: Dalip SinghVs Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges:
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
ORDER
1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral Dart of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do no hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
If any body have ..pls. post...thanking u.
harish
04 October 2011 at 00:20
Dear sir, I need reporter AIR/Digest etc.with page no,where this judgment/order on 340 crpc is reported reg........... Thanking u...
SCA/9161/2010 2/2 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9161 of 2010
======================================
BABUBHAI MERVANBHAI PATEL – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 – Respondents
====================================== Appearance : MR M.B.GANDHI FOR MR NAYAN D PAREKH for the Petitioner. MR M.R.MENGDEY, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2,
======================================
CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 18/08/2010
ORAL ORDER
In response to the Notice issued by this Court, the petitioner is personally present in the Court and Mr.M.B.Gandhi, learned advocate has appeared for him. The petitioner has tendered unconditional apology and has requested to pardon him as he is senior citizen. He has admitted the guilt, however, he has requested not to initiate any proceedings for perjury. He has submitted that he is ready and willing to pay fine/heavy cost, which may be quantified by this Court.
Before considering as to whether the unconditional apology should be accepted or not, let the petitioner deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only) as probable fine/cost with the Registry of this Court on or before 23/08/2010 in lieu of initiation of proceedings of perjury and for making false statement before this Court on affidavit. Only thereafter, request of the petitioner to pardon him and/or as to whether to accept his unconditional apology or not, shall be considered.
-------------------------------------------
Petitioner aggreed for perjury – Gujrat HC told to deposit 25K as probable fine
SCA/9161/2010 2/2 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9161 of 2010
======================================
BABUBHAI MERVANBHAI PATEL – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 – Respondents
====================================== Appearance : MR M.B.GANDHI FOR MR NAYAN D PAREKH for the Petitioner. MR M.R.MENGDEY, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2,
======================================
CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 18/08/2010
ORAL ORDER
In response to the Notice issued by this Court, the petitioner is personally present in the Court and Mr.M.B.Gandhi, learned advocate has appeared for him. The petitioner has tendered unconditional apology and has requested to pardon him as he is senior citizen. He has admitted the guilt, however, he has requested not to initiate any proceedings for perjury. He has submitted that he is ready and willing to pay fine/heavy cost, which may be quantified by this Court.
Before considering as to whether the unconditional apology should be accepted or not, let the petitioner deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only) as probable fine/cost with the Registry of this Court on or before 23/08/2010 in lieu of initiation of proceedings of perjury and for making false statement before this Court on affidavit. Only thereafter, request of the petitioner to pardon him and/or as to whether to accept his unconditional apology or not, shall be considered.
S.O. to 23/08/2010. To be placed in 11:00 a.m. board.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
harish
04 October 2011 at 00:11
Dear sir,
I need reporter AIR/Digest etc.with page no,where this judgment/order on 340 crpc is reported reg...........
Thanking u.....
Bench: S P Davare
1 cra266.07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2007
Shriram Munjaji Raut,
age 55 years, occ. Labour,
r/o Shendra, Taluka and
District Parbhani ...Appellant [Original Witness No.2 in
Sessions Case]
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent .....
Shr i Joyde ep Cha t t e r j e e , advoc a t e for appe l l ant (or igina l a c cus ed) Smt . Y.M.Kshi r s aga r , A.P.P. for
respondent/State
.....
CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.
DATED : 14th March, 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 29.6.2007, rendered by the learned Sessions
Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007, thereby punishing the appellant
under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for giving false evidence in Sessions Trial No. 8 of
2006, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in
default, rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
2 cra266.07
2 The factual matrix, which gave rise for the present appeal, can be summarised as under :
Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the first informant, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut on 14.11.2005, due to
death of Meerabai i.e. daughter of the complainant, criminal law was set into motion and the first information
report Exh. 20 was lodged bearing C.R. No. 178 of 2005 in respect of offence punishable under Section 306
r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused persons thereunder were tried in Sessions Trial No. 8
of 2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, and the said accused persons were acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Shriram Munjaji Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/879842/ 13 However, the show cause notice came to be issued to Shrirang Munjaji Raut, who was Prosecution Witness
No. 2, under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence before the court, by the
said learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, by the judgment and the order, dated 13.4.2007, since learned Sessions
Judge, Parbhani, arrived at the conclusion that the said first informant, namely Shrirang Raut deposed falsely
before the said court in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006, and therefore, the learned 3 cra266.07
Sessions Judge observed that in order to have faith of public in judicial process, it is necessary to take action
against him. 4 Accordingly, in pursuance of the directions, issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in
Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006, on 13.4.2007, show cause notice was issued to the said witness, namely
Shrirang Raut (PW2) under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that why action should not be
taken against him under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under
Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for giving false evidence. The said proceeding was numbered as
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007.
5 The nonapplicant, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut appeared in the said proceeding through the advocate and
filed his say and resisted the said proceeding.
6 Considering the evidence on record and the contents of the first information report Exh. 20, and also
considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and further considering the
position that giving false evidence attracts punishment for seven years under Section 193 of the Indian Penal
Code, learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, by judgment and order 4 cra266.07
dated 29.6.2007, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007, punished the nonapplicant
under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006
and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default to
suffer further rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment
and order, dated 29.6.2007, the appellant has preferred the present appeal and prayed for quashment thereof.
8 Admittedly, the appellant herein was Prosecution Witness No. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006 before the
Sessions Court, Parbhani, who had lodged the first information report Exh. 20, due to death of his daughter,
namely Meerabai, under Sections 498A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9 Learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, scrutinized the evidence on record and also assessed the testimony of
PW2 i.e. nonapplicant/appellant herein, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut and observed that the matter is settled
out of court and close relatives, like father and mother of the deceased, did not support the case of deceased,
though father of deceased, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut 5 cra266.07
i.e. appellant herein had submitted first information report Exh. 20 and set law into motion, and consequently,
offence was registered and accused were arrested for the offence under Sections 498A, 306 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, but the appellant herein resiled from his allegations in the complaint. Moreover, he was
exposed in the crossexamination and it was revealed in his evidence that the contents of his report, when
explained to him, were false and he denied the report Exh.20, which was recorded by the police as per his say,
and considering his conduct, learned Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the appellant herein deposed
falsely before the court and further observed that in order to have faith of public in judicial process, it was
necessary to take action against him. Accordingly, since Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
empowers the court to take action against the witnesses who deposed falsely before the court and further
observed that it is necessary that proceeding under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the
offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be initiated against the appellant
herein, and consequently, gave directions to issue show cause notice to the appellant under Section 344 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence before the court that why he should not be punished
under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned herein above.
Shriram Munjaji Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/879842/ 26 cra266.07
10 Sum and substance of the matter is that the appellant herein has retracted from his report Exh. 20, although
he has filed the same, whereupon criminal law was set into motion, by giving false evidence before the court.
11 Hence, learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani has taken the cognizance of the offence and after giving due and
reasonable opportunity to the appellant of showing cause why he should not be punished for said offence,
gave summary trial to him and sentenced him for imprisonment for the term of three months and imposed fine
of Rs.500/ upon him, under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12 In the said context, Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is
77 years old person and his one daughter namely Meerabai is already expired and his another daughter got
married during the pendency of the appeal and his third daughter, namely Muktabai is mentally retarded
person living with him. Moreover, Shri Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that
deceased daughter Meerabai has got two daughters, namely Shruti and Surekha and their entire responsibility
is upon the appellant herein. It is also submitted that the appellant is a poor person, and therefore, claimed for
leniency in 7 cra266.07
sentencing the appellant and submitted that the appellant has already deposited fine amount of Rs.500/ in
court on the date of judgment itself i.e. on 29.6.2007, but as regards the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for
three months, prayed that it be reduced to one day i.e. till rising of the court, considering the afore said
genuine difficulties of the appellant.
13 Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the present appeal vehemently and
submitted that in fact, the appellant should have been tried for the offence punishable under Section 193 of the
Indian Penal Code for giving the false evidence before the court, but the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani,
while rendering the judgment and order, dated 13.4.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006, directed to issue
show cause notice to the appellant under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving false
evidence before the court and invoked the summary procedure for trial for giving the false evidence under
Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which attracts punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three
months and ceiling of fine amount of Rs.500/, which has been already awarded to the appellant, which is
p r o p e r a n d wo u l d me e t t h e e n d s o f j u s t i c e a n d n o i n t e r f e r e n c e t h e r e i n i s wa r r a n t e d i n t h e a p p e l l a t e
jurisdiction. 8 cra266.07
15 Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, admittedly direction was
issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani while rendering the judgment and order in Sessions Trial No. 8
of 2006 on 13.4.2007, but issued show cause notice to the appellant under Section 344 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence before the court that why he should not be punished under
Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani has invoked the summary
procedure for trial for giving false evidence under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
State has not filed any appeal against the said judgment and order. Accordingly, the appellant was tried in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007 summarily under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for giving false evidence before the court and took the cognizance of the offence after giving the
appellant reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence and
sentenced him for imprisonment for the term of three months and also imposed fine of Rs.500/ upon him.
Admittedly, there is ceiling upon the fine amount under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Rs.
500/ and maximum fine amount has been imposed upon him, which has been already deposited by him on
29.6.2007 i.e. the date of judgment and order. 9 cra266.07
16 As regards the punishment imposed upon the appellant by sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for three months, and considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective
parties in that respect, and considering the advance age of the appellant and the dependants upon him and also
Shriram Munjaji Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/879842/ 3considering the fact that he has given the false evidence, which deserves proper and appropriate signal to the
society that giving false evidence cannot be tolerated and also while striking the balance between them, I am
of the view that imposition of rigorous imprisonment for one month upon the appellant instead of rigorous
imprisonment for three months would meet the ends of justice.
17 In the result, present appeal is allowed
partly and the order of awarding punishment to the appellant under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for giving false evidence in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006 is confirmed, but the sentence of three
months rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani is modified
and the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month instead of three months, and the
fine of Rs.500/ imposed upon the appellant is maintained and the order to that effect passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Parbhani stands confirmed, and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant to
surrender before the learned Sessions 10 cra266.07
Judge, Parbhani within three weeks from the date of this order, failing which the learned Sessions Judge,
Parbhani shall take suitable action against the appellant, in accordance with law. Office to communicate the
afore said order to the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani forthwith.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE),
JUDGE.
dbm/cra266.07
Shriram Munjaji Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011
harish
04 October 2011 at 00:01
Dear sir,
I want to quote these Important Perjury Citations.But these are incomplete as required reported with page nos.weather these are right to quote or not?
I.I think it is incomplete.Can anybody add something?
2.Some judgement are recently ordered by various courts.and not reported in AIR/digest in this case these citations will be accepted or not if i quote only download judgment from internet?
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, Pala under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure. Code against the respondent herein who is the 3rd defendant in O.S. 68/83 alleging that he had manipulated the official records of the Panchayat and had given false evidence before Court and as such he has committed the offence punishable under Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC.
4. After trial the Munsiffs Court dismissed the Suit. The Munsiffs Court also dismissed the O. P. (Misc.) 7/85 holding that there is no sufficient material to institute proceedings against the respondent herein under Section 340 of the Cri. P. C.
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. 21. 6
(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, (1971) 2 SCC 182].
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. on 1 October, 1980
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 on 12 January, 1983
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.
SCA/9161/2010 2/2 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9161 of 2010
======================================
BABUBHAI MERVANBHAI PATEL – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 – Respondents
====================================== Appearance : MR M.B.GANDHI FOR MR NAYAN D PAREKH for the Petitioner. MR M.R.MENGDEY, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2,
======================================
CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 18/08/2010
ORAL ORDER
In response to the Notice issued by this Court, the petitioner is personally present in the Court and Mr.M.B.Gandhi, learned advocate has appeared for him. The petitioner has tendered unconditional apology and has requested to pardon him as he is senior citizen. He has admitted the guilt, however, he has requested not to initiate any proceedings for perjury. He has submitted that he is ready and willing to pay fine/heavy cost, which may be quantified by this Court.
Before considering as to whether the unconditional apology should be accepted or not, let the petitioner deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only) as probable fine/cost with the Registry of this Court on or before 23/08/2010 in lieu of initiation of proceedings of perjury and for making false statement before this Court on affidavit. Only thereafter, request of the petitioner to pardon him and/or as to whether to accept his unconditional apology or not, shall be considered.
Petitioner aggreed for perjury – Gujrat HC told to deposit 25K as probable fine
December 24, 2010Fighting Legal TerrorLeave a commentGo to comments
SCA/9161/2010 2/2 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9161 of 2010
======================================
BABUBHAI MERVANBHAI PATEL – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 – Respondents
====================================== Appearance : MR M.B.GANDHI FOR MR NAYAN D PAREKH for the Petitioner. MR M.R.MENGDEY, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2,
======================================
CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 18/08/2010
ORAL ORDER
In response to the Notice issued by this Court, the petitioner is personally present in the Court and Mr.M.B.Gandhi, learned advocate has appeared for him. The petitioner has tendered unconditional apology and has requested to pardon him as he is senior citizen. He has admitted the guilt, however, he has requested not to initiate any proceedings for perjury. He has submitted that he is ready and willing to pay fine/heavy cost, which may be quantified by this Court.
Before considering as to whether the unconditional apology should be accepted or not, let the petitioner deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only) as probable fine/cost with the Registry of this Court on or before 23/08/2010 in lieu of initiation of proceedings of perjury and for making false statement before this Court on affidavit. Only thereafter, request of the petitioner to pardon him and/or as to whether to accept his unconditional apology or not, shall be considered.
S.O. to 23/08/2010. To be placed in 11:00 a.m. board.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
Important Perjury Citations
October 22, 2010Fighting Legal TerrorLeave a commentGo to comments
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, Pala under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure. Code against the respondent herein who is the 3rd defendant in O.S. 68/83 alleging that he had manipulated the official records of the Panchayat and had given false evidence before Court and as such he has committed the offence punishable under Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC.
4. After trial the Munsiffs Court dismissed the Suit. The Munsiffs Court also dismissed the O. P. (Misc.) 7/85 holding that there is no sufficient material to institute proceedings against the respondent herein under Section 340 of the Cri. P. C.
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. 21. 6
(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, (1971) 2 SCC 182].
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. on 1 October, 1980
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 on 12 January, 1983
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.
CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25-1-2010
Sunny Bhumbla .........Appellant Vs
Shashi .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present: Shri K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant. HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2008 Annexure P-1 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide which he allowed the petition moved under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights leaving the parties to bear their own costs and rejected the application moved under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted with great eloquence that after the respondent admitted in her cross-examination about her employment, salary and inheritance
of the landed property, she again placed on record another affidavit dated 27.8.2008 solemnly affirming therein that she had inadvertently not mentioned about the source of income as well as employment in the earlier affidavit dated 14.8.2008. Thereafter the appellant moved an application under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against the respondent for submitting a
false affidavit CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 2 before the learned trial Court, in order to get more maintenance from the appellant. The learned trial Court had assured the appellant that his said application shall be decided alongwith the main case.While deciding the main petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment it has been observed that "in support of her claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the
respondent/applicant had made certain assertions, which were found to be totally false and the same had apparently been done by her in a deliberate manner. Consequently even an application for initiating suitable proceedings against her on account of her having submitted a false affidavit was also filed
by the petitioner on 3.9.2008. Thereafter, the respondent did not press her claim for interim maintenance, but the same did not absolve her of the liability of the aforesaid lapse. This court, however, does not wish to initiate any such proceedings against the respondent with the hope that sooner or later, the parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else this young couple may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways
in a peaceful manner and therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication of the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the above false affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent."
It is further argued that the learned trial Court has overlooked
the fact that the respondent has used the false affidavit in the judicial
proceedings. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating,
forging and perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the
learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal.
CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 3 I have given a deep and thoughtful
consideration to these submissions.
A careful perusal of the observations rendered by the learned trial
Court in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned judgment would reveal that there is
not even a shred of reference to the application moved under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. This apart, no specific reasons have been apportioned
for not initiating the action on the basis of the alleged affidavit. The said
application having been moved under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to be disposed of separately. It was not desirable on the part of the learned trial Court to decide the said application in a slip shod manner by making mere passing reference to the alleged affidavit. In the application moved under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. if the Court deems fit, the inquiry has to be held whereas in the present one, the impugned order is
absolutely silent as to whether or not inquiry was held. There is specific
procedure which is to be followed while disposing of an application moved under
Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 340 of the Criminal
Procedure Code reads as under:-
"340.Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec.195--(1) When, upon an
application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of the opinion
that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made
into any offence referred to to in cl (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195,
which appears to have been committed in or in relation to to a proceeding in
that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of of a document produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 4
such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary.
(a) record a finding to that effect.
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before
such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court
thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate;
and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an
offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under
sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the
making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court
is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Sec.195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed (a)
where the Court making complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court
as the Court may appoint.
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court,
and (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in CRA No.
197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 5 Sec.195."
A glance through the impugned order would reveal that the learned
trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The
approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome and is depreciable.
The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether the application has been dismissed or allowed, if so for which reasons. In consequence of the preceding discussion the trial Court is directed to decide the application under discussion in accordance with law. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(HARBANS LAL)
JUDGE
January 25, 2010
RSK
NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No
harish
03 October 2011 at 22:49
Dear sir,
My ex wife creating problem after ex-party divorce.I hv married after ex-party divorce after waiting her appeal time,90 days.She has filed restoration.I hav filed 340 on her restoration.Hearing is on 11.10.2011.
She came on 29.9.2011 from 30 km from other district to Lucknow at very nearby my home.She came at my neighbor's home along with one more neighbor and took one another characterless lady nearby and tried to plan to entering into my house.On 30.9.201 again seen at near by my home.It appears that she wanted to come with forcefully in my house.it can be happened again and suspected in coming days.
Please advice and suggest me legally what should do?
harish
24 September 2011 at 21:29
Dear sir,
I have filed 340 crpc case as a perjury on 125 crpc running case in magistrate court at the stage of her byan and cross-examination along with a judgement/citation of allahabad high court " 340 dispose off first".but court is not ready to accept it . court says it is not rulling , it is only order.
Judgment :
Court No.29
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ Petition No. (M/S) of 2002
Syed Nazim Husain
Vs.
The Additional Principal
Judge Family Court & another
Hon'ble A. Mateen, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A.
Since a very trivial point is involved I propose to dispose of the petition at this initial stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the order dated 24.10.2002 be quashed.
From the order dated 24.10.2002 it comes out that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court on the application, moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. instead of disposing of the same had postponed disposal of the said application and ordered that said application may be disposed of after evidence is recorded in case No. 566/89.
In my view, if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.
In the circumstances, I dispose of the present application and direct the Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with law.
With the above observations the petition is disposed of finally.
9.1.2003 sd- A.Mateen
Kindly sugest me is there any judgment relatedto this case?
Member Strength 9,50,311 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Ex party divorce reg.
Dear sir,
I Got ex party divorce on 18.11.2009(13 a, filed on 12.5.2008) through proper channel from family court,lucknow.She had fully/ truly knowledge regarding this divorce petition.She has singed in summon- acknowledgement which is attached in court file.
I have got decree of divorce. Still i have not got marriage.
Now she has filed for Restoration of Ex-party divorce after four months, only for linger on divorce.Even today, Still hearing date in court is not come and pending for restoration/bahas etc. i have also filed 340 crpc case on this restoration.is also pending.
Now I am getting civil marriage. can i marry with other girl and if i marry at this pending stage then this marrige will be legal ? pls advice and suggest the precautions.