Need 340 crpc reg...........reporter/books with page no.
harish
(Querist) 06 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
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
ajay sethi
(Expert) 06 October 2011
repeated query
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 06 October 2011
:-) Harish,
Please note that III Citation doesnot even mention the HC.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
harish
(Querist) 06 October 2011
Dear shonee ji
I think u r right.correction is below...
THE HIGH COURT ANDHRA
A.Anuradha Vs. Canara Bank 2006 ALT 4 581
In the case of A.Anuradha Vs. Canara Bank 2006 ALT 4
581, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held :-
“In this connection, it is apposite to observe that Satya [truth] and Ahinsa [nonviolence] are the two basic values of life, which have been cherished for centuries in this land of Mahavir and Mahatma Gandhi. People from different parties of the world come here to learn these fundamental principles of life. However, post-independence era and particularly the last two decades have witnessed sharp decline in these two basic values of life. Materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and quest for personal gain is so immense that people do not have any regard for the â “truthâ”..
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.”
Actually this one was referred in point no. 36 in Sardar Harjit Singh vs Sardar Ravel Singh & Ors.
Thanku
