Perumal Vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014

Posted on April 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Justice Jasti Chalameswar on the Supervisory Authority of High Courts on Lower Courts in a state and how and why it should have been invoked in this case gainfully. If not under 193 IPC, invocation of 211 IPC was very much desirable in this case.

Another observation is that one can file Perjury under section 340 CrPC even after getting acquittal.

Citations : [2015 NCC 1 678], [2014 SCC 5 377], [2014 SCC CRI 2 591], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 46], [2014 CTC 1 664], [2014 AIC 135 224], [2014 AIOL 32], [2014 AIR SC 993], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 2 70], [2014 CRLJ SC 1454], [2014 JT 2 180], [2014 SCALE 1 406], [2014 SLT 1 680], [2014 KLJ 1 688], [2014 AICLR 1 828], [2014 MLJ CRI 1 505], [2014 RAJ 1 30], [2014 SCJ 3 152], [2014 LW CRL 1 793], [2014 KCCR SN 3 166], [2014 AIR SCW 993], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 851], [2014 CUT LT 118 22]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25369927/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af43e4b0149711415fb6

M.S.Sheriff Vs The State of Madras and Others on 18 March, 1954

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

M.S.Sheriff Vs The State of Madras and Others on 18 March, 1954

Equivalent citations: [1954 SCR 1229], [1954 AIR SC 397], [1954 CRILJ 1019], [1954 LW 67 625], [1954 SCR 1 1144]

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019

Posted on March 8, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019

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.

IPC 193 – Punishment for false evidence

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine,

and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.—A trial before a Court-martial; 1[***] is a judicial proceeding.

Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence.

Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in any enquiry before an officer deputed by a Court of Justice to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding. A has given false evidence.

Baban Singh And Anr Vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 February, 1966

Posted on June 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court here in this excellent judgment that,

Section 191 and 192 IPC deal with perjury and filing of false affidavit in pleadings would be covered under Section 191. Section 191 deals with evidence on oath and Section 192 with fabricating false affidavits; the offence under Section 191 IPC is constituted by swearing falsely when one is bound by oath to state the truth because a declaration made under an oath. The definition of the offence of giving false evidence thus applies to the affidavits.

The offence may also fall within Section 192 which, inter alia, lays down that a person is said to fabricate false evidence if he makes a document containing a false statement intending that such false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding and so appearing in evidence may cause any person who, in such proceedings is to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceedings.

Therefore, where declarations in affidavits which were tendered in the Court to be taken into consideration, the authors of the affidavit clearly intended the statement to appear in evidence in a judicial proceedings and so appearing, to cause the Court to entertain an erroneous opinion regarding the compromise, therefore, the offence would fall within Section 191, 192 which is punishable under Section 193 IPC, therefore, it was held that the authors of the affidavits were guilty of offence of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in judicial proceedings.

Baban Singh And Anr Vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 February, 1966

Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011

Posted on May 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the knife filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and approached the Hon’ble court with unclean hands and committed fraud upon the Hon’ble.

Key (Tricky) Highlight around applicability of CrPC but not Sec 468 CrPC:

24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 508.

Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011

Citations : [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 90], [2012 CRLJ SC 309], [2012 ALLMR CRI SC 369], [2011 CRIMES SC 4 51], [2011 SUPREME 6 181], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 129], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 1], [2011 SCC 12 588], [2011 SLT 6 434], [2011 AIOL 597], [2011 SCALE 9 295], [2011 JT 11 177], [2012 SCC CRI 2 614], [2011 ACR SC 3 3544], [2011 DMC SC 3 7], [2011 KCCR 4 3283], [2011 KLJ 3 40], [2011 KLT SN 4 69], [2011 NCC 2 544], [2011 SCR 10 557], [2011 UC 3 1758], [2012 SCC CIV 2 742]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1337239/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af03e4b014971141557d

Another previous judgment cited in this judgment is available here.

Index DV case laws is here.

Mahesh Tiwari Vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2016

Posted on April 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a Quash Judgment of Allahabad High Court in which it was held that an Affidavit can be considered as a evidence, in regards to a Perjury petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for an offense punishable under Section 193 IPC.

The salient features of giving false evidence under Section 191 IPC are:-

(i) intentionally making a false statement, or
(ii) declaration by a person who is under a legal obligation to speak the truth.

But it must be remembered that the very essence of crimes of this kind is not how such statements may injure this or that party to litigation but how they may deceive and mislead the courts and thus produce mischievous consequences to the administration of justice.

Consequently, there cannot be any doubt that if a statement or averment in a pleading is false, it falls within the definition of offence under Section 191 IPC. It is not necessary that a person should have appeared in the witness box. The offence stands committed and completed by the filing of such pleading.

An affidavit is ‘evidence’ within the meaning of Section 191 IPC and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury. The definition of the offence of giving false evidence applies to the affidavits.

Mahesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2016

Read Baban Singh and another vs. Jagdish Singh and others here.

Read Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Pepsu AIR 1959 SC 843 here.

Read S.P.Kohli (Dr.) vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana AIR 1978 SC 1753 here.

Read Asgar Ali Mulla Ibrahimji vs. Emperor AIR 1943 Nag 17(18) here.

Read Emperor vs. Padam Singh AIR 1930 All 490 here.

Read Parag Dutt vs Emperor AIR 1930 Oudh 62 (63) here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: IPC 193 – Punishment for false evidence

Perumal Vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014

M.S.Sheriff Vs The State of Madras and Others on 18 March, 1954

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019

IPC 193 – Punishment for false evidence

Baban Singh And Anr Vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 February, 1966

Mahesh Tiwari Vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2016