Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court was seized of a civil appeal arising from a dispute over leave and licence to run a sales counter granted on compassionate grounds. The petitioner challenged the High Court's order that had granted liberty to respondent No.1 to withdraw the writ petition and file another on the same cause of action. The Court found that such liberty was wrongly given and that the respondents had abused the process. In its earlier order dated April 2, 1996, the Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No.7084/96 and dismissed the appeal filed by Sudershan Kumari with costs. The Court also noticed that a false affidavit of impersonation had been filed, attested by a Notary, and directed the Notary to show cause why he should not be prosecuted and his licence cancelled. After the direction, a notice was sent to the Notary based on the name furnished by the respondent and in the oath. The Registry reported that no such person was available in Tis Hazari Courts. Consequently, by order dated October 23, 1996, the Court directed Mr. Goburdhan, learned counsel for the respondent, to furnish the name of the Oath Commissioner, failing which proceedings would be initiated against the first respondent Sudershan Kumari who had filed the false affidavit. Despite time being given, the respondent did not respond. Her counsel stated that in spite of his letter, the respondent was not responding. The core question before the Court was whether the first respondent should be convicted for producing false certificate and false affidavits under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when the attesting authority could not be traced and she failed to assist the court. The learned counsel for the respondent reported that the respondent was not responding to his communications. The Registry's report established that the named Notary/Oath Commissioner was not available in Tis Hazari Courts. There were no further submissions from the respondent. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent had produced a false certificate and false affidavits. The attesting authority was found to be non-existent, and the respondent did not furnish the correct name of the Oath Commissioner despite being given an opportunity and a warning that proceedings would be initiated against her. The Court concluded that it was left with no option but to convict the first respondent. The offence under Section 199 IPC, which punishes false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence, was established. The Court emphasized the gravity of abusing the judicial process by filing false oaths and impersonation. The Supreme Court convicted Mrs. Sudershan Kumari under Section 199 IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000, in default to undergo a further sentence of six weeks. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. The order was sent to the Sessions Judge, Delhi to enforce the sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - False Affidavit and Perjury - Section 199, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The respondent produced a false certificate and false affidavits attested by a Notary/Oath Commissioner who was found to be non-existent; despite opportunity, she failed to furnish the name of the Oath Commissioner. Held that conviction under Section 199 IPC was warranted; sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000, with concurrent sentences. (Paragraph numbers not available in original judgment)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent should be convicted under Section 199 IPC for producing false certificate and false affidavits when the attesting Notary/Oath Commissioner was non-existent and she failed to identify him despite opportunity.
Final Decision
The first respondent Mrs. Sudershan Kumari was convicted under Section 199 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further sentence of six weeks; both sentences to run concurrently; order sent to Sessions Judge, Delhi for enforcement.
Law Points
- A person producing false certificate and false affidavits is liable to be convicted under Section 199 IPC
- non-cooperation in identifying the attesting authority strengthens the decision to convict
- courts have inherent power to punish for false oaths and abuse of process
- High Court should not permit withdrawal and refiling of writ petition on same cause of action if it amounts to abuse of process.
