1. Nobody Should be Permitted to indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods
Supreme Court of India Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994, Author: H B.L. Bench: Hansaria B.L. (J), PETITIONER: CHANDRA SHASHI Vs. RESPONDENT: ANIL KUMAR VERMA DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1994
… 8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.
…..9 …Now, if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive, the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the courts from performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1224592/
2. Perjury Application to be register as Miscellaneous Judicial Case as per Civil Manual Chapter XIX para 337 in Civil case
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1115/07.
APPLICANT: 1. Kenneth Desa s/o Late John Desa Vs NON-APPLICANT: Gopal s/o Leeladhar Narang,
..7 Whenever an application under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed, the Civil Manual Chapter XIX para 337 requires that it should be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case i.e. a case where a Judicial Enquiry is contemplated. The learned Civil Judge should have, therefore, directed the application to be registered
3. Two contradictory statements in witness box, Person can be convicted of perjury.
Karnataka High Court Gangawwa vs State Of Mysore on 17 February, 1967 Equivalent citations: AIR 1969 Kant 114, AIR 1969 Mys 114, 1969 CriLJ 496 Bench: Santhosh
……. 6. I have already referred to Illustration (b) of S. 236 Cr.P.C. which states that a person may be charged in the alternative and convicted of intentionally giving false evidence, although it cannot be proved which of the contradictory statements was false. Sri Vijaya Shankar has also relied on Umrao Lal v. State, , which is an authority for the proposition that in a prosecution under S. 193 IPC. if the prosecution succeeds in proving that the accused in the witness box deliberately made two statements which are so contradictory and irreconcilable with each other, that both cannot possibly be true, he can be convicted of perjury even without its being proved which one of them was not true.
….. 10. With regard to the contention that the statement under S. 512 Cr.P.C. cannot be made use of when the petitioner is alive and could give evidence, it may be pointed out that this has reference only to the absconding accused in the said proceedings. There is no prohibition for making use of a statement given by the petitioner under section 512 Cr.P.C. against herself in proceedings instituted under section 193 IPC. With regard to the contention that S. 512 proceedings are neither inquiry, nor trial, it may be pointed out that S. 479A Cr.P.C. does not refer to any inquiry or trial. All that it states is “giving false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding”. What is a ‘judicial proceeding’ is defined in S. 4(m) Cr.P.C. it reads thus: “‘Judicial proceeding’ includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath.” http://indiankanoon.org/doc/875441/
4. Court should dispose Perjury or Cr. P.C 340 Application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Writ Petition No. (M/S) of 2002 Syed Nazim Husain vs. The Additional Principal Judge Family Court & another Hon’ble A. Mateen, J.
From the order dated 24.10.2002 it comes out that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court on the application, moved by the petioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. instead of disposing of the same had postponed disposal of the said application and ordered that said application may be disposed of after evidence is recorded in case No. 566/89. In my view, if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.
In the circumstances, I dispose of the present application and direct the Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with law
5. This Punjab and Haryana High court Citation explain if application under CrPC 340 is moved then the court must undertake the procedure for CrPC 340 in disposing that application. It was not correct on part of trial court to refer cursorily to the mentioned fact of false affidavit in judgment, and thus dismissing the CrPC 340 application by being silent on the issue
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25-1-2010 Sunny Bhumbla ………Appellant Vs Shashi ………Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant. HARBANS LAL, J.
.. This court, however, does not wish to initiate any such proceedings against the respondent with the hope that sooner or later, the parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else this young couple may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways
in a peaceful manner and therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication of the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the above false affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent.”
It is further argued that the learned trial Court has overlooked the fact that the respondent has used the false affidavit in the judicial proceedings. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating,
forging and perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal.
….The said application having been moved under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to be disposed of separately. It was not desirable on the part of the learned trial Court to decide the said application in a slip shod manner by making mere passing reference to the alleged affidavit. In the application moved under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. if the Court deems fit, the inquiry has to be held whereas in the present one, the impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether or not inquiry was held. There is specific procedure which is to be followed while disposing of an application moved under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
.. A glance through the impugned order would reveal that the learned trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome and is depreciable. The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether the application has been dismissed or allowed, if so for which reasons. In consequence of the preceding discussion the trial Court is directed to decide the application under discussion in accordance with law
6 In Perjury petitioner admitted the guilt and given apology, and Ready to pay cost, but court should be accepted apology or not, before petitioner should deposit the Amount
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD, SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9161 of 2010, BABUBHAI MERVANBHAI PATEL – Petitioner Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 – Respondents CORAM ONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 18/08/2010
…The petitioner has tendered unconditional apology and has requested to pardon him as he is senior citizen. He has admitted the guilt, however, he has requested not to initiate any roceedings for perjury. He has submitted that he is ready and willing to pay fine/heavy cost, which may be quantified by this Court.
Before considering as to whether the unconditional apology should be accepted or not, let the petitioner deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only) as probable fine/cost with the Registry of this Court on or before 23/08/2010 in lieu of initiation of proceedings of perjury and for making false statement before this Court on affidavit. Only thereafter, request of the petitioner to pardon him and/or as to whether to accept his unconditional apology or not, shall be considered http://indiankanoon.org/doc/112965/
7. HC Ask Trial Court may consider Perjury against the prosecution witnesses for misguiding
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA, Verma Prasad Kushwaha vs The State Of Bihar on 23 February, 2011, Cr Misc No 4584 of 2011,
… Before parting, I would like to notice that the trial Court may consider the desirability of instituting prosecution against the prosecution witnesses for perjury and malicious prosecution for mobilising police with a false plea. Steps should be taken expeditiously. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/201994/
8, Perjury Application (CrPC 340) should be accepted even after the Final Judgment
Delhi High Court Mrs. Geeta Monga vs Ram Chand S. Kimat Rai And Ors. on 11 January, 2005 Author: R Jain Bench: Crl.M. 928/20041
….The above findings and observations of the learned Trial Court are not only mutually inconsistent but self-destructive because on one hand the learned trial court noted that the respondent has made a false/inconsistent statement and on the other hand,it has noted that the Court cannot take a notice of ”every falsehood sworn in the Court” and the gravity of the false statement is not such which attracts the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C.”
This Court is at a loss to appreciate such kind of approachf the learned trial court. The mere fact that the respondent/defendant/judgment debtor has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge should not have dissuaded him from answering the application under section 340 Cr.P.C. on its merits. The whole approach of the learned Additional District Judge to such kind of issue cannot be approved. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot be legally sustained, as it has resulted into miscarriage ojustice.3.The result of the above discussion is that the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the board of the learned Trial Court for deciding the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. afresh in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on 7th February, 2005.
Check Important Link
mensrightactivist 