The Delhi High Court decided an important issue on perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrP (Section 379 BNSS).
The defendants sought prosecution of the plaintiff’s officials for allegedly filing fabricated drawings and false statements. The court examined whether the circumstances justified criminal prosecution for perjury during civil proceedings.
The judgment clarifies that courts must exercise extreme caution before initiating perjury proceedings. Courts should order prosecution only in clear cases where conviction appears likely.
The following paragraphs explain the court’s reasoning that led to the final decision.
“21. Formation of prima facie opinion that a person charged has intentionally given false evidence is a condition precedent for directing lodging of a complaint. The existence of mens rea or criminal intention behind act complained of will have to be looked into and considered before any action under Section 340 of the Cr.PC is recommended.”
“22. The affidavits of Mr. Manrao and Mr. Rihal aforesaid were in the nature of pleadings of the plaintiff. The court must be very cautious in its approach in prosecuting a person for making any statement claimed to be false in regard to a pleading, so that party’s right to plead freely is not curtailed.”
“23.It cannot also be lost sight of that in criminal prosecution there is waste of public funds and time of courts. For this reason also in every case of perjury the court would not mechanically take cognizance or direct prosecution. Prosecution should be ordered only when it is considered expedient and in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent.”
“24. There is yet another principle of law though relating to witnesses. A witness is entitled to an opportunity to correct himself. In the present case, Mr. Rihal during the cross examination admitted two mistakes in the drawings alleged to be fabricated. Mr. Rihal having corrected himself, ought not to be prosecuted.”
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendants’ application under Section 340 CrPC (Section 379 BNSS).
The court held that the facts did not justify prosecution for perjury. The alleged discrepancies in drawings did not establish deliberate falsity or criminal intent.
The court also noted that excessive perjury prosecutions may defeat the purpose of justice.
Citation :167 (2010) DLT 490
Other Sources :
Index of Perjury Judgements is here.
Key Contributor :
Mrs Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150
