Very good article by Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh regarding many aspects of Perjury under section 340 CrPC.
Tag: Perjury Under 340 CrPC
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
Perumal Vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014
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
Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police on 8 July, 2013
The cunning knife produced a forged passport and husband exposed her with a RTI response from Passport Authority. And the clever police denied to file a FIR for the forgery complaint!!
Hon’ble Madras High Court ordered the police to file FIR and investigate the case in accordance with law. Awesome !!!
Citations:
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163886641/
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
Yalala Swapna Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and anr on 09 June, 2009
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has penalized the Writ petitioner as she has lied that she has submitted notarized affidavits but in fact she could not prove that she did. Hence the said affidavits introduced into the Court are termed as false affidavits which contained the false averment/pleading.
Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited Vs Sharda Steel Corporation on 26 March, 2012
High Court of Gurajat held in this judgment that, disposal of perjury can be done at the end of a main petition/case but it does not stop magistrate to form an opinion by conducting a preliminary inquiry.
Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011
Bombay High Court has given 1 month imprisonment for a person for giving false evidence in a case. And maximum fine allowed under 344 CrPC, which is paltry Rs.500/- And if Rs.500/- not paid, 1 more week of imprisonment.
So 1 week of imprisonment = Rs.500/- ???
Jagdish Prasad Vs State and Others on 23 March, 2009
This is a facepalm experience for the ADJ who said that,
“Mere recording of a finding to the effect that an offence punishable under section 193 of the Penal Code was committed would not answer requirement of section 340 of the Code. When primary question was answered in affirmative then secondary and most effective proposition was to be answered to the effect whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an action in the matter. No such step was taken by the Trial Court to see that it was expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. In such a situation, order impugned is shrouded with illegality. In cannot be allowed to stand.”
For which, the High Court of Delhi gave a befitting answer, such as from Para 18,
In the considered view of this Court, when the learned MM in the order dated 9th September 2005 observed “I am, therefore, of the opinion that Smt. Veena has committed an offence under Section 193 IPC and she ought to be prosecuted for the same”, the requirement of Section 340 CrPC as explained by the Supreme Court stood satisfied. In other words, the opinion formed by learned MM was obviously only a tentative or a prima facie one. This is plain from the expression “ought to be prosecuted”. Further, the same expression “ought to be prosecuted” also indicates the formation of an opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that Respondent No.2 should be prosecuted. Therefore, both the requirements of law as explained by the Supreme Court in relation to Section 340 CrPC stood completely satisfied by the order dated 9th September 2005 passed by the learned MM. This Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the conclusion reached by learned ASJ to the contrary.
Garima Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and another on 19 January, 2010
In this order from Allahabad High Court, the knife challenges the order of levying a fine of Rs.10,000/- for perjury (Lying that she is not working in DPS). The orders of perjury are stayed until the objections are resolved.
It has been argued by Mr. Tripathi that under the provisions of Section 340, Cr.P.C. the court can make only preliminary inquiry and the final order which may be in the form of imposing fine can be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction and the court of competent jurisdiction would be that court in which the complaint would be filed by the court in which the perjury was committed. The court which made the preliminary inquiry had no jurisdiction to finally conclude the matter and impose the fine, therefore, the order dated 15.7.09 is bad and is liable to be quashed. Regarding the order dated 7.10.09 it was argued by Mr. Tripathi that once a wrong order was passed by the court on 15.7.09 it should have been reviewed and when it was not reviewed, hence, the order dated 7.10.09 is also bad and is liable to be quashed.
