Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1990 (ALL)

KAILASH NARAIN ARORA v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-08-31

SUNIL HALI

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—This petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of proceeding initiated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. On the basis of which, the notice is issued to the applicant that he has made a false statement by stating that the revision of the respondents was dismissed by the Court. They were directed to surrender before the Court below and a cost of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed. This statement has been made by filing an affidavit before the trial Court. On the basis of this, a notice was issued to the applicant. The case of the applicant is that revision of the respondents was dismissed by the Court and they were directed to surrender before the trial Court. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that they had an impression that costs of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed. The intended purpose of the applicant was never to mislead the Court and he was under the bona fide belief that costs of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed. 3. The stand of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the applicant has intentionally made a statement that a cost of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed while, in fact, the Court had not imposed any such cost. This by itself is sufficient to proceed against the applicant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 4. 25,000/- has been imposed. 3. The stand of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the applicant has intentionally made a statement that a cost of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed while, in fact, the Court had not imposed any such cost. This by itself is sufficient to proceed against the applicant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 4. In order to understand the rival contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, it is necessary to re-produce Section 340 Cr.P.C. : “(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,- (a) Record a finding to that effect; (b) Make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) Send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) Take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) Bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,— (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; 1[(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.] (4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in Section 195.” The import of aforesaid section indicates that if the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary require to proceed against the applicant. The import of the section clearly envisages that proceedings can be initiated for the offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195. Such offence having been in relation to the proceedings in that Court or as the case may be in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. What is clearly indicated is that the document must have been produced or given in the proceeding in that Court. The intended purpose is that if any document is given which can change the course of the proceeding or the trial, for which the proceeding can be initiated. if any false statement or evidence is given which can have direct bearing on the outcome of the proceedings in the trial, the proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can be initiated. 5. Second aspect of the matter is as to whether any evidence has been adduced by the applicant under Section 195 (1) (b) Section 195 Cr.P.C. provides prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servant for offences relating to documents given in evidence. 5. Second aspect of the matter is as to whether any evidence has been adduced by the applicant under Section 195 (1) (b) Section 195 Cr.P.C. provides prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servant for offences relating to documents given in evidence. The offences which have been covered under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, are also mentioned. Sections 193 to 196 contemplates that giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punishable with imprisonment as provided therein. A bare reading of this section clearly contemplates that a person is guilty of giving false evidence, in any such a judicial proceeding, which will be used in any such judicial proceedings, a statement is required to be given in a proceeding which will adversely effect the outcome of the proceedings which can be said to be false evidence. 6. What is attributed against the applicant is that he has made a wrong statement that the revision of the other side was dismissed with costs. This statement does not have direct bearing on the outcome of the proceedings and would not constitute false statement. It is only that statement which has direct effect on the outcome of the proceeding which would be termed as false statement. Every wrong statement does not lead to contempt under Section 195 Cr.P.C. but only those statements which have been made during the course of the trial. A wrong statement does not lead to contempt as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. but it is only those statement which influence the proceedings and trial. It is clearly provided that such statement must be made in the proceedings in the case. Any statement which has not been made in relation to the proceedings, would not amount to false statement. The Court has mechanically proceeded to issue notice to the applicant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. without examining the contents of the false statement and evidence so made and its effect on the proceedings. Any statement which has not been made in relation to the proceedings, would not amount to false statement. The Court has mechanically proceeded to issue notice to the applicant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. without examining the contents of the false statement and evidence so made and its effect on the proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings initiated by Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Court No. 1, Hathras on the basis of the application dated 24.1.2007 filed by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and the notice date 1.2.2007 in Crl. Case No. 1/2007 (Durgesh Burman and another v. Kailash Narain Arora) are quashed. ——————