Need citation 340 crpc reg...........
harish
(Querist) 05 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
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
(Querist) 05 October 2011
Andhra High Court
State: Represented By Its ... vs Baddepudi Penchalaiah, 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
State: Represented By Its ... vs Baddepudi Penchalaiah, on 11 October, 2007
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.
State: Represented By Its ... vs Baddepudi Penchalaiah, on 11 October, 2007
Dear sir,
Need citation/ REPOTER/book/page no., 340 crpc, Perjury Citations
harish
(Querist) 06 October 2011
Dear sir ,
Thanking u.for providing this information....
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 06 October 2011
But this is not a judgement regarding perjury.
It is about Writ Law.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
