Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 253 (JK)

Rattan Lal v. Lok Nath

2000-11-10

T.S.DOABIA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. The very "sanctity of oath" requires that a person put on oath must speak the truth and nothing but the truth. Filling of false affidavit is not to be taken lightly. 2. The petitioner submits that the respondent herein filed a false affidavit to the effect that his income was Rs. 850/- p.m. He submits that he in fact is a millionaire. He lodged an FIR with the police. This was to the effect that the petitioner not only owned land but infact also had a house in Purani Mandi. Jammu. It was stated that he is in fact a millionaire. For filing a false affidavit he wants the respondent to be proceeded against FIR was recorded. The case was registered under Section 420/ 467/ 4687 471 RPC. 3. The trial court has come to the conclusion that as the affidavit in question was filed before the Jammu Development Authority and as the Jammu Development Authority has not made any grievance, therefore, a cognizance of this need not to be taken. It is this order passed by the Trial Court which is subject matter of challenge in this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that as the Jammu Development Authority has made no grievance about the affidavit in question, therefore that should be the end of the matter. 5. The Jammu Development Authority was ordered to be arrayed as a party in this petition. Mr. A.G. Sheikh, Advocate has appeared for the Jammu Development Authority. He has stated that this aspect of the matter can be looked into by the Jammu Development Authority also. 6. Not withstanding the above stand of the Jammu Development Authority the question arises as to whether the order passed by the trial court is in accordance with law and as to whether the trial court was justified in coming to a conclusion that the file in question be consigned to the records. 7. The State has not filed any revision petition in this case. The letter written by the Asstt. Legal Remembrance on 31.5.2000 in which an opinion has been given that the Government does not consider it to be a fit case for filing an appeal against the acquittal is highlighted. This is placed on the record as Annexure "C-l". 8. Section 181 of the R.P.C. deals with the false statement on oath or an affidavit. Legal Remembrance on 31.5.2000 in which an opinion has been given that the Government does not consider it to be a fit case for filing an appeal against the acquittal is highlighted. This is placed on the record as Annexure "C-l". 8. Section 181 of the R.P.C. deals with the false statement on oath or an affidavit. This section is reproduced below : "181. False statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or person authorised to administer on oath or affirmation. Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or affirmation to state the truth on any subject to any public servant or other person authorised by law to administer such oath or affirmation makes to such public servant or other person as aforesaid, touching that subject, any statement which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine". 9. The aforementioned section is self-explanatory. Any person making a false statement before a person who is authorised to administer oath renders himself liable to punishment for either description for a term which may extend to three years. Therefore, to say that no action can be taken against the respondent because he had submitted some affidavit before the Jammu Development Authority is an argument which cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the above, the argument put across by the learned counsel for the respondent that as the Jammu Development Authority has not taken cognizance of the matter or for that matter the Asstt. Legal Remebrancer of the Law Department has formed an opinion that it is not a fit case for appeal cannot stand in the way in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction vested with this Court. The tendency to give false statements and swearing false affidavits is on the increase. This has necessarily to be curbed. For the reason best known to the State the State has not filed any revision against the impugned order. 11. This revision is allowed. 12. The case is sent back to the trial court, who will examine the case in the light of Section 181 of the Penal Code. This provision be given due regard. For the reason best known to the State the State has not filed any revision against the impugned order. 11. This revision is allowed. 12. The case is sent back to the trial court, who will examine the case in the light of Section 181 of the Penal Code. This provision be given due regard. As the Jammu Development Authority has now become aware of the fact and if no action is taken against the respondents, then it be presumed that they are also party in abetting the offence. A copy of the order be made available to the Vice Chairman of Jammu Development Authority. The trial Court to proceed further in accordance with law.