A single judge of Delhi High Court held that acts of Contempt may be purged/remedies but not acts of perjury.
From Paras 7 and 8,
7. This brings us to the next issue i.e., whether Respondents have committed the offence of perjury by making a false statement in the reply to the present petition. In the reply, Respondent No. 2 has categorically denied the liability for Petitioner’s dues, in contrast to his earlier admission. Mr. Nakul Mohta, counsel for Respondent No. 2, argues that the stand taken in the reply was in light of aforementioned facts that came to the knowledge of Respondent No. 2 at a later stage, and for this reason a civil suit was also filed against the Petitioner. Without prejudice, to the above, he contends that a mere contradictory stand taken in a pleading should not on its own invite an action for perjury in exercise of the Court’s discretion provided under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter “CrPC, 1973”]. Respondent No. 2, present in-person, explains that his stand was revised on account of fresh information received from his accounts team regarding debit notes that had been raised on the Petitioner for defective supplies. He states that earlier at the time of confirming Petitioner’s dues, he was unaware of the said debit notes and was in fact, hard pressed by multiple legal proceedings which were ongoing. At this juncture, he is willing to tender an unconditional apology to this Court.
8. The Court is unconvinced by the above submissions. Respondent No. 2, initially refuted the liability to pay the Petitioner’s dues, as recorded in order dated 17thDecember, 2012 in CO. PET. 519/2012. Subsequently in the said proceedings, he filed an affidavit in reply in February, 2013 [hereinafter “Affidavit of February, 2013”, provided at Annexure-C] admitting his liability and clarifying that the earlier denial was a bona fide mistake on account of a mix-up of files with a similarly named company. He further undertook to pay Petitioner’s dues in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 01st April, 2013. Now, faced with the present contempt action he has denied his liability entirely by raising a plea of debit notes and has instead raised a claim on the Petitioner.
From Paras 10-12,
10. In the opinion of the Court, reply to the contempt petition, supported by Respondent No. 2’s affidavit, which denies the liability to pay Petitioner’s dues is plainly false in view of unambiguous and categorical admission made to the contrary, in the Affidavit of February, 2013. The explanation or the change in stand premised on Respondents being burdened by multiple pending litigations, downsizing/ lack of staff and lack of knowledge, is not convincing. In the opinion of the Court, the revised stand in the reply appears to be a wilful false statement. In the Affidavit of February, 2013, Respondent No. 2 verified that he was well-versed with the facts and circumstances of the case and that he is competent to swear the affidavit. He further verified that the statements made therein were true and correct to best of his knowledge. The legal system relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals who appear before courts. When one makes a statement before the court or signs an affidavit, they are making a solemn declaration to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Filing of a false affidavit is a serious offence that undermines the very foundation of the legal system. The subsequent reply and accompanying affidavit prima facie contain false statements made in the course of judicial proceedings, which is punishable under Section 193, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter, “IPC, 1860”].
11. Respondent No. 2 has offered to tender an unconditional apology. However, in the opinion of the Court, the same is of no avail. Perjury, is the act of knowingly and wilfully making false statements under oath, with the intent to deceive or mislead the court. It is a serious criminal offence, as it strikes at the very heart of the judicial process by undermining the integrity of the evidence presented in Court. The act of contempt can be purged or remedied, by the offending party, but in contrast, perjury cannot. Simply recanting or correcting a false statement cannot undo the act. Affidavits in a court of law have sanctity and cannot be taken casually. Thus, a false statement to the Court has to necessarily invite adverse action. In the present matter, the Court is not concerned as to why the promised schedule of payments has been breached by Respondents. The primary concern is Respondent No. 2’s statement of denying the liability of the dues in face of an earlier unequivocal admission. Such a contradictory stand without any cogent explanation is prima facie a deliberate false statement to mislead the Court and thus an apology by Respondent No. 2 would not deter an action invited for perjury.
12. Accordingly, this Court is prima facie of the view that offences under Sections 191 and 192 of IPC, 1860 punishable under Section 193, 199 and 200 of IPC, 1860 have been committed by Respondent No.2 in relation to the present proceedings. In terms of Section 340(1) of CrPC, 1973 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) of CrPC, 1973, this Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the false statement made by Respondent No. 2 in the reply to the present petition, for which a written complaint should be made to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Registrar General is hereby directed to draw up and make a complaint in the above terms and send it to the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate within four weeks. The said complaint will be accompanied by a complete certified copy of the entire file of the present matter and CO. PET. 519/2012.
Index of Perjury Judgments is here.
