Perjury – Punishment for giving false evidence during judicial proceedings – CRPC 340 R/W CRPC 195
Posted on February 23, 2024
INTRODUCTION:
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) in India deals with the procedure for filing a complaint for the prosecution of a person for giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding, or for using such evidence knowing it to be false. Here’s a brief explanation of CRPC 340:
- Who can file a complaint: Any court when it is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence mentioned in the section.
- Offences covered: The section covers three main types of offences:
- Giving false evidence
- Fabricating false evidence
- Using false evidence
- Procedure for filing a complaint: The court may, either on its own motion or on the application of any party to a proceeding, make a preliminary inquiry. If, after such inquiry, the court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case, it can:
- Record a finding to that effect
- Make a complaint in writing
- Send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction
- Consequences: Once the complaint is filed, the Magistrate to whom the complaint is made may take cognizance of the offence under Section 340 as if the complaint were made under Section 190.
- Purpose: The purpose of this provision is to discourage and penalize the giving of false evidence and the production of false documents in judicial proceedings, which are detrimental to the administration of justice.
In summary, CRPC 340 provides a mechanism for dealing with false evidence or fabrication of evidence in judicial proceedings, ensuring that those who engage in such practices can be prosecuted and penalized.
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS:
Here are a few key judgments related to Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC):
- Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005): In this case, the Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 of the CRPC are independent of the main proceedings and are in the nature of a complaint case. The court also clarified that even if the main case ends in acquittal, the complaint under Section 340 can continue.
- Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (2011): The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the court has the power to summon and examine witnesses under Section 340, and it is not necessary to examine all the witnesses of the main case before initiating proceedings under this section.
- 1996 SCC (2) 384 – State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996): The Supreme Court held that the power under Section 340 is discretionary, and the court should exercise it judiciously. The court should not act on vague and indefinite allegations, and there should be sufficient material to establish a prima facie case.
- Amarjit Singh v. Jiwan Lal (2013): The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the power under Section 340 can be exercised even after the judgment in the main case has been delivered, as long as the court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of justice.
These judgments provide guidance on the interpretation and application of Section 340 of the CRPC, emphasizing the importance of using this provision judiciously and ensuring that there is sufficient material to establish a prima facie case before initiating proceedings under this section.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS:
Here are a few High Court judgments in India related to Section 340 of the CRPC read with Section 195 of the CRPC:
- Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas (Rajasthan High Court, 2006): In this case, the Rajasthan High Court held that the provisions of Section 195 of the CRPC are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. The court emphasized that before a complaint can be filed under Section 340, there must be a judicial order passed under Section 195(1)(b) or (c) authorizing the filing of such a complaint.
- Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Narinder Mohan (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2010): The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the requirement of a judicial order under Section 195 of the CRPC is a condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 340. The court reiterated that the provisions of Section 195 are mandatory and cannot be circumvented.
- Kamla Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2013): In this case, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated the principle that the requirement of a judicial order under Section 195 of the CRPC is mandatory. The court observed that failure to comply with this requirement would render the proceedings under Section 340 void.
These judgments highlight the importance of complying with the provisions of Section 195 of the CRPC before initiating proceedings under Section 340. It is essential to obtain a judicial order authorizing the filing of a complaint for the prosecution of offenses listed in Section 340.
Article Written by
Pathakota Venkata Mohana Rao B.Com, LL.M
Advocate at High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
Designated Partner at VENSO LAW OFFICES LLP
Office No: +91 967 967 6450
E-mail ID: vensolawofficesllp@gmail.com
