Very good article by Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh regarding many aspects of Perjury under section 340 CrPC.
Month: January 2020
Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 19 March 2010
This is the SLP at Supreme Court of India, assailing the well reasoned judgment of Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra of Delhi High Court, ordering a Perjurer to pay a fine of 15.1 Lakhs to the victim.
We find no ground to interfere with the well considered judgment passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Citations:
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaa0f7607dba382a079e61
The Delhi High Court judgment is available here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 06 November 2008
My favorite Judge, Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji had delivered this gem of an order.
9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for overflowing of Court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong-doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong-doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong-doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts.
Citations: [154 (2008) DLT 411],
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66a48607dba6b53436039
Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor on 22 December 1922
Bombay High Court holds that,
“the purpose of the codified statute is that on any point specifically dealt with by it the law shall be ascertained by interpreting the language used.“
and,
The Indian Penal Code defines the offence and also states what matters will afford a defence, and therefore it may be said that this Code deals specifically with the question, and it follows that the Court is not entitled to invoke the Common Law of England in the matter at all.
Indian Law Reports version:
Casemine version:
Citations: [(1923) ILR 46 Bom 605], [A. I. R. (10) 1923 Mad. 523 (F. B.)],
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/338846/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5721afa7607dba2e3c8879c8
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968
In this landmark classic case, Supreme Court has held that,
16. In a recent judgment of the House of Lords Rumping v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1962 3 All ER 256 Rumping the in mate of a Dutch ship was tried for murder committed on board the ship. Part of the evidence for the prosecution admitted at the trial consisted of a letter that Rumping had written to his wife in Holland which amounted to a confession. Rumping had written the letter on the day of the killing, and had handed the letter in a closed envelope to a member of the crew requesting him to post it as soon as the ship arrived at the port outside England. After the appellant was arrested, the member of the crew handed the envelope to the captain of the ship who handed it over to the police. The member of the crew, the captain and the translator of the letter gave evidence at the trial, but the wife was not called as witness. It was held that the letter was admissible in evidence. Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Lord Hodson and Lord Pearce were of the view that at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy. Accordingly except where the spouse to whom the communication is made is a witness and claims privilege from disclosure under the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (of which the terms are similar to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act though not identical), evidence as to communications between husband and wife during marriage is admissible in criminal proceedings.
17. The question whether the complainant in this case is an agent of the wife because he has received the letters from the wife and may be permitted to give evidence is a matter on which no opinion at this stage can be expressed. The complainant claims that he has been defamed by the writing of the letters. The letters are in his possession and are available for being tendered in evidence. We see no reason why inquiry into that complaint should, on the preliminary contentions raised, be prohibited. If the complainant seeks to support his case only upon the evidence of the wife of the accused, he may be met with the bar of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. Whether he will be able to prove the letters in any other manner is a matter which must be left to be determined at the trial and cannot be made the subject-matter of an enquiry at this stage.
Supreme Court of India version:
Case Mine version:
Citations: [1969 SCR 2 692], [1970 AIR SC 1876], [968 KERLT 904], [1950 AIR TC 38], [1969 SCC 1 37], [1970 CAR 210], [1970 CRLJ 0 1651], [1970 CRI LJ 1651]
Indiankanoon.org or ILR link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1159106/ or http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/21403
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926
In this landmark judgment by old Madras High Court, it was held that the accusations made in a complaint to Magistrate do NOT have absolute privilege and only have qualified privilege as provided under section 499 of IPC. Such accusations are liable for defamation if NOT protected by exception 8.
Indian Law Review version (Original):
Indiankanoon Version:
Citations: [49 Mad. 728], [A. I. R. (18) 1926 Mad. 906], [1926 (27) Cri LJ 1026], [AIR 1926 Mad 906], [(1926) 51 MLJ 112],
Indiankanoon.org or ILR link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1159106/ or http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/21403
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Sachin Sharma and Ors Vs Radhika Sharma on 06 February 2013
Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that, the cunning respondent levelled similar allegations in FIR under Section 498-A IPC were duly inquired by the police and it was found that petitioners No. 2 and 3 were innocent. So the DV case on both the parents was quashed.
Citations: [2013 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 817],
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83272752/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56099c51e4b01497113cd848
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Anoop and Ors Vs Vani Shree on 05 August 2014
Punjab and Haryana High Court has held thus,
The term domestic violence encompasses a variety of criminal offences. These intra family offences are however are generally between immediate family members but not extended family members or non blood relatives. The phrase ‘domestic violence’ has to be understood in context of ‘domestic relationship and ‘shared household’, and therefore, the reliefs as aforesaid are meaningful only against the persons with whom the person aggrieved shares a ‘domestic relationship’ and a ‘shared household’. However, it has become an unfortunate trend to implead even the distant relatives in such like cases. To this extent at least, the law designed for protection of women is being misused for ulterior motives. It is often argued that the Act has given an undue advantage to the women and is most lethal weapon which women can use to exploit, extort and threaten not only the husband and his family but also his distant relatives. The law thus is being used to terrorise the husbands, their families and distant relatives and this phenomenon has now acquired the name of ‘Legal Terrorism’ and rightly so, given the extent of its misuse, particularly against the distant relatives of the husband as in the instant case.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66869607dba6b534329fe
Dr. J.Sudarshan Vs R.Sankaran on 16 August, 1991
Madras High Court held in Para 14 that,
In this context reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision in Ram Kumar Pori v. State of U.P. to contend that when the civil suit is pending, a parallel prosecution for defamation, could not be proceeded with. Such a proposition of law cannot be deduced from the above decision. In that case, the Supreme Court held that, when a civil court is seized of the question of disputed possession between rival parties, parallel proceedings by the Executive Magistrate u/s. 145, Cr.P.C. also to decide possession ought not to be proceeded with. This has no bearing on the case before us. The offending passage is per se defamatory and it is open to the respondent to choose to prosecute the petitioner, irrespective of the pendency or the result of the civil litigation. The Civil Court would confine its decision to the trespass, threat of injury and damage by the servants, agents and workmen of the various defendants and the entitlement of token damages by the respondent, while the criminal Court, the passage being per se defamatory, would proceed to find out whether any one of the 10 Exceptions to S. 499, I.P.C. would apply. The scope of the two proceedings is entirely different. They are not parallel.
Citations: [1992 CRIMES 2 465], [1992 CRI LJ 2427], [1992 MLJ 1 439], [1991 SCC ONLINE MAD 608]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1764544/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49603607dba348f0161fb
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006
Kerala High Court hass held that,
Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.
Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758], [2006 (2) KLT 122]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1547517/
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
