Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal miscellaneous case in the Patna High Court relating to false affidavits filed by a husband and wife in connection with a compromise in a pending first appeal. The respondents had moved the High Court under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution of the appellants for making false affidavits denying receipt of money under a compromise. During the pendency of First Appeal No. 301 of 1952, a compromise was said to have been arrived at between Dharichhan Kuer, respondent No. 13, and Jagdish Singh and Parmhans, the appellants in that appeal. Dharichhan Kuer and Jagdish Singh swore an affidavit on June 22, 1953 in support of the petition for compromise. Baban Singh's brother identified Dharichhan Kuer before the Oath Commissioner, and Rs. 4,000 were paid to her under the compromise in the Commissioner's presence. Dharichhan Kuer also passed a receipt, and her thumb impression was identified by Baban Singh's brother. The petition of compromise was filed in court on July 13, 1953. On July 31, 1953, Baban Singh filed an affidavit denying the compromise or that his wife had received Rs. 4,000. On September 9, 1953, Dharichhan Kuer also filed an affidavit in support of her husband. As the compromise was in dispute, the High Court ordered the Registrar to hold an enquiry. Nine witnesses were examined on behalf of Jagdish Singh and Parmhans, including the Oath Commissioner. Dharichhan Kuer and Baban Singh gave evidence on their own behalf. The Registrar reported on July 14, 1954 that the compromise was genuine and that Dharichhan Kuer had received Rs. 4,000. The High Court accepted the report by order dated October 5, 1956. One of the terms of the compromise was that if Dharichhan Kuer resiled from it, the amount of Rs. 4,000 would be refunded with costs of Rs. 500. Dharichhan Kuer deposited this amount in court on October 9, 1956. The first appeal was then heard and disposed of. The application under Section 476 out of which the appeal arose was filed during the pendency of the first appeal and was taken up for hearing after the appeal was disposed of. The High Court did not consider action under Section 193 IPC because of Section 479-A CrPC, which had come into force on January 1, 1956, and counsel for the respondents conceded that no prosecution could take place under that section. Instead, the High Court considered whether action should be taken in respect of the two affidavits and held that an offence under Section 199 IPC was prima facie committed. The High Court ordered the Registrar to file a complaint before the appropriate authority for the prosecution of the appellants. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 476-B CrPC. The respondents did not appear before the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the offence committed by the appellants fell under Sections 191 and 192 IPC or under Section 199 IPC, and whether proceedings under Section 479-A CrPC could be taken against the appellants, and if so, whether action under Section 476 was barred. The appellant argued that the false affidavits were made on oath and intended to appear in evidence, thus falling under Sections 191/192 IPC, and that Section 479-A CrPC exclusively applied, barring action under Section 476 by virtue of Section 479-A(6). The Supreme Court held that the affidavits were made under oath and tendered in the High Court to be taken into consideration, intending the statements to appear in evidence and to cause the court to entertain an erroneous opinion regarding the compromise. Therefore, the offence came within the words of Sections 191/192 rather than Section 199 IPC. Section 479-A CrPC provides a special procedure for witnesses who intentionally give false evidence or fabricate false evidence in a judicial proceeding, covering offences under Sections 191/193 and 192/193 IPC. Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A bars proceedings under Sections 476 to 479 when proceedings may be taken under Section 479-A. Since the appellants were witnesses in the inquiry and had fabricated false evidence, the High Court ought to have followed the procedure under Section 479-A CrPC. Not having done so, the action under Section 476 was not open. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order for prosecution of the appellants, and directed that the complaint, if filed, be withdrawn.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - False Evidence and Fabrication of False Evidence - Distinction Between Section 199 and Sections 191/192 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 191, 192, 199 - The appellants filed affidavits on oath denying compromise and receipt of money in a pending first appeal, intending the declarations to be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding. The Supreme Court held that such false affidavits came within the words of Sections 191/192 rather than Section 199 IPC because they were made under an oath and intended to cause the court to entertain an erroneous opinion regarding the compromise. Held that the offence of false affidavit was thus prima facie under Sections 191/192 IPC, not Section 199 IPC (Paras not mentioned). B) Criminal Procedure - Prosecution for Perjury by Witness - Exclusive Procedure Under Section 479-A CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 476, 476B, 479A, 479A(6) - The appellants as witnesses in the High Court inquiry had allegedly given or fabricated false evidence, attracting Section 479-A CrPC. Section 479-A provides a special procedure for offences under Sections 191/193 and 192/193 IPC when committed by witnesses before civil, revenue or criminal courts. Since the High Court did not follow the special procedure under Section 479-A and instead acted under Section 476, the proceedings were barred by Section 479-A(6), which prohibits action under Sections 476 to 479 when action may be taken under Section 479-A. Held that the order for prosecution under Section 476 CrPC was invalid and was set aside; complaint, if filed, shall be withdrawn (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether false affidavits filed in the High Court constituted an offence under Section 199 IPC or under Sections 191/192 IPC, and whether proceedings under Section 476 CrPC were barred by Section 479-A(6) because action could have been taken under Section 479-A.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order for prosecution of the appellants under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was set aside. The complaint, if filed, was directed to be withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the false affidavits constituted offences under Sections 191/192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and not under Section 199, and that the special procedure under Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was exclusively applicable; failure to follow it barred action under Section 476 due to Section 479-A(6).
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- False affidavits made on oath and intended for use as evidence in a judicial proceeding fall under Sections 191/192 IPC
- not Section 199 IPC
- Section 479-A CrPC provides exclusive procedure for prosecution of witnesses for false evidence or fabrication of false evidence
- Section 479-A(6) bars action under Sections 476-479 CrPC when action can be taken under Section 479-A
- distinction between Sections 191
- 192 and 199 IPC
- special procedure mandatory for offences under Sections 191/193 and 192/193 IPC by witnesses
