Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the context of excise valuation of refrigerators manufactured by Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Private Limited. The central issue in the underlying excise matter was whether the cost of corrugated fibre containers (CFCs) used for packing refrigerators for distant delivery should be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Revenue included such cost, and Godrej sought exclusion. For the period 1976-78, the Assistant Collector rejected the exclusion plea but the Appellate Collector allowed it. For the subsequent period 1982-83, the Revenue again served demand notices including the CFC value. Godrej challenged those notices by filing Writ Petition No.1110 of 1983 in the Bombay High Court. In March 1984, a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on grounds that did not include certain dealer letters offered by Godrej, because the Revenue objected to their late admission and the court declined to admit or rely upon them. The Revenue's Letters Patent Appeal No.429 of 1986 was dismissed by a Division Bench in June 1986. The Revenue then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court in 1987. In June 1987, searches of Godrej premises across the country led to the seizure of a letter dated June 1, 1983, written by the General Manager (Marketing) to certain branch managers. The letter instructed the branch managers to obtain from trusted dealers antedated letters stating facts supporting Godrej's case for exclusion of CFC value, as if the letters had been written between May 1976 and February 1979. These letters had been prepared with reference to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International. The Revenue filed copies of these letters in the Special Leave Petition and contended that Godrej was guilty of fabricating evidence and misleading the court. On September 4, 1989, the Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in the light of the letters, directing the High Court to decide their admissibility, relevance and value and then determine the assessable value. After remand, Godrej apparently abandoned its case for exclusion, approached the Revenue authorities including the Central Board of Excise and Customs for a settlement, and offered to pay all duty due, including amounts that had become time-barred. Godrej then filed an application to withdraw the writ petition. The Revenue opposed the withdrawal, arguing that Godrej had indulged in clear fabrication of evidence and tried to defraud the court, and therefore should be dealt with sternly to serve as a lesson to others. The writ petition was eventually disposed of by an order dated March 12, 1990, recording an undertaking to pay approximately Rs.3.80 crores and permitting withdrawal, but without any reference to the Revenue's allegation of fabrication of evidence. Subsequently, by a common judgment dated November 29, 1991, the Bombay High Court directed the Registrar to file a criminal complaint against Godrej and some of its officers and dealers under Section 340 CrPC for alleged commission of offences under Sections 192 and 193 IPC, being prima facie satisfied that fabrication of false evidence had occurred and that it was expedient in the interests of justice to try them. Six special leave petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against that order. One special leave petition became infructuous due to the death of petitioner K.S. Gurumurthy, and another petition became infructuous insofar as deceased petitioner Mrs. Ameen was concerned. Leave was granted in the surviving matters. The provided judgment text ends before recording the final operative order or detailed reasoning of the Supreme Court on the merits of the challenge to the High Court's order, so the final outcome cannot be determined from the available extract.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Complaint for false evidence - Section 340 CrPC and Sections 192 and 193 IPC - The High Court directed the Registrar to file a criminal complaint against a company and its officers/dealers after being prima facie satisfied that they fabricated false evidence in a proceeding before it and that it was expedient in the interests of justice to try them for the offence under Section 193 IPC; the power to direct such complaint is conferred by Section 340 CrPC when the court forms an opinion that an inquiry should be made into an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Evidence - Fabricating false evidence - Section 192 IPC - The alleged act of obtaining antedated dealer letters to support exclusion of CFC packing cost from excise valuation prima facie constituted fabricating false evidence because it involved making documents containing false statements intending that they may appear as evidence in a judicial proceeding; the letter from the General Manager instructed branch managers to obtain such antedated letters from trusted dealers as if written between May 1976 and February 1979. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Excise Law - Valuation of goods - Section 4 Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - The underlying merits concerned whether the value of corrugated fibre containers used for packing refrigerators for distant delivery should be included in the assessable value of refrigerators under Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944; the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International laid down principles governing that issue among others, and the alleged fabricated letters were prepared with an eye upon those principles. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of writ petition - Effect of withdrawal on criminal liability for false evidence - Permitted withdrawal of the writ petition by order dated 1990-03-12 did not contain any reference to the Revenue's allegation of fabrication of evidence, and the Revenue opposed withdrawal arguing that stern action was necessary to deter fraud on court; withdrawal of the writ petition did not automatically absolve the petitioners from liability under Sections 192/193 IPC if fabrication occurred. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bombay High Court was justified in directing the filing of a criminal complaint under Section 340 CrPC for offences under Sections 192 and 193 IPC on the ground of alleged fabrication of false evidence.
Law Points
- Fabrication of false evidence under Section 192 IPC
- Punishment for false evidence under Section 193 IPC
- Power of court to direct complaint under Section 340 CrPC
- Prima facie satisfaction
- Expedient in interests of justice
- Withdrawal of writ petition does not automatically absolve criminal liability
