In this Appeal on a Election Petition, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the evidences of the witness are not just hearsay but utter lies.
Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification
M.S.Sheriff Vs The State of Madras and Others on 18 March, 1954
This is the grand old daddy judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court, which says deal with perjury first.
From Para 15, the 5-judge bench of Supreme Court held as follows,
15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.
From Para 16, reason for disposing of perjury (a criminal offence first) given,
16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.
From the final Para 17, wherein the 4 ongoing Civil suits are stayed and the criminal prosecution u/s 193 IPC was allowed to go ahead.
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed but with no order about costs. Civil Suits Nos. 311 of 1951 to 314 of 1951, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, will be stayed till the conclusion of the prosecution under section 193, Indian Penal Code. As the plaintiffs there are parties here, there is no difficulty about making such an order.
Equivalent citations: [1954 SCR 1229], [1954 AIR SC 397], [1954 CRILJ 1019], [1954 LW 67 625], [1954 SCR 1 1144]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/500548/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aaf2e4b014971140b4db
Index of all Perjury case laws is here.
Maj. Genl. A.S.Gauraya and Anr Vs S.N.Thakur and Anr on 25 April, 1986
This is landmark judgment which held that a/c to Article 141 of Constitution of India, all judgments of Supreme Court of India are binding on all courts in India and they are applicable to all pending proceedings even with retrospective effect.
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019
A diabolical Medical college management played a cunning cat and mouse game with MCI, Government and the hon’ble Supreme Court of India to cheat and get permission to do admissions for medical courses in their college and paid the hefty price.
Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 51]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194049971/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c7164069eff4312dfbb5f69
Index of all Perjury case laws is here.
Anand Kumar Sharma Vs BCI on 01 March, 2019
This is a case of an advocate filing false information during the enrollment with Bar Council. After debarring him from enrollment, then he went of a petition/appeal filing spree at all level of courts. All the time getting dismissed.
M.M. Malhotra Vs Union of India And Ors on 4 October, 2005
Supreme Court held that the offence of 498A was not made out in this case. It has a checkered history. See the tantrums of knife.
- in the year 1990, she came to know that the appellant had developed illicit relations with one Miss Anna Suja John when he was posted at Trivandrum.
- The appellant started beating her brutally and torturing her mercilessly because of Miss Anna Suja John.
- It was further stated in the complaint that in the year 1991 itself, Miss Anna Suja John came to Nagpur and started staying with the appellant and complainant Mrs. Roopa Malhotra at their residence at Nagpur.
- The complainant strongly objected to this and requested the appellant not to have any relationship with Miss Anna Suja John and told her to leave Nagpur. When complainant could not bear the torture, she sought an interview with the then Air Marshal I.G. Krishna, HQ Maintenance Command, Indian Air Force and narrated her plight to him.
- brother of the appellant came to Nagpur and told the complainant that if she files a complaint against her husband, his career would be spoiled. He also promised that Miss Anna Suja John would go back to Kerala.
- When the complainant had gone to Kanpur she saw Miss Anna Suja John with her child residing in the parental house of the appellant at Kanpur.
- The appellant abused the complainant in front of Miss Anna Suja John in filthy language.
- When they were at Kanpur, appellant and Miss Anna Suja John used to sleep in one room and complainant was asked to sleep in another room. At Kanpur, the appellant told the complainant that he and Miss Anna Suja John are married. While they were at Kanpur, appellant and Miss Anna Suja John were behaving as husband and wife and going to hotels and various other places together. The same thing continued at Nagpur.
- The complainant tried her best to keep her nineteen years’ old marriage intact.
Now the hubby dear responds to the complaint filed against him
- In the communication it was indicated that Mrs. Roopa Malhotra @ Ruby Basu had filed written statement on 1.10.1992 in Regular Civil Suit no. 887/1992 filed by the appellant wherein she had stated that she was already married to one D.J. Basu, her husband. The marriage was subsisting at the time when she married the appellant.
- It is to be noted that the said suit was filed by the appellant in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, inter alia, for a declaration that defendant Roopa was not his wife as her spouse was living on the date they started living as husband and wife. Suit was decreed on 19.6.1993.
- It was appellant’s stand that in view of the said statement he should not be required to submit his explanation in view of Rule 16(4) of the Rules.
- The appellant submitted that there was no plural marriage as so-called marriage was non existent in the eyes of law. Since there was no valid marriage at the first instance the question of plural marriage did not arise.
- The High Court did not find any substance in the plea and held that the conduct of the appellant was unbecoming of a member of the disciplined force like Air Force.
State Of Punjab and Anr Vs Jalour Singh and Ors on 18 January, 2008
Citations : [2008 SCC CIV 1 669], [2008 SCC CRI 1 524], [2008 SCC L&S 1 535], [2008 AIR SC 1209], [2008 KLJ 1 887], [2008 AIC SC 64 262], [2008 JT 2 83], [2008 SCALE 2 52], [2008 RCR CIVIL 1 857], [2008 AIR SC 0 1196], [2009 TAC 1 819], [2008 ALLSCR 0 692], [2008 SCJ 2 95], [2008 SCC 3 660], [2008 TNMAC 1 244], [2008 KHC 2 89], [2008 AIOL 112], [2008 ARBLR SC 1 257], [2008 SCR 1 922], [2008 MLJ SC 5 311], [2008 AIR SCW 1196], [2008 KLT SC 2 236], [2008 ACJ SC 2874]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/483834/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae95e4b0149711414361
Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 27 March, 2014
In this landmark judgment, a 2-judge Bench of Apex Court has held that a person can approach either High Court of a Sessions Court for a Regular bail under 439 CrPC, instead of exhausting the remedy of approaching the Magistrate Court.
News about this judgment:
Citations: [2014 AIOL 181], [2014 CRIMES SC 2 161], [2014 SCALE 4 215], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 2 313], [2014 SUPREME 3 285], [2014 AIR SC 2115], [2014 SLT 3 540], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 416], [2014 CRLJ SC 2245], [2014 JT 4 486], [2014 JCC SC 2 1264], [2014 AIR SC 1745], [2014 SCC 16 623], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 257], [2014 KERLT 2 809], [2014 CRILJ 2245], [2014 NCC 1 570], [2015 NCC 1 798]
Other Source Links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102030495/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af48e4b01497114160a8
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
