Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a police officer, was the Investigating Officer in a murder case (C.R.No.89 of 1994 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC). After investigation, a chargesheet was filed by his successor, and the appellant appeared as a witness during trial. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, acquitted all accused and held that the appellant had fabricated false evidence during investigation and given false evidence during trial. Consequently, the Judge held an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC, recorded a finding that the appellant had committed offences under Sections 193 and 194 IPC, and decided to make a complaint under Section 340(1)(b) CrPC. The appellant appealed under Section 341 CrPC. The High Court examined the order and found that the Additional Sessions Judge had not recorded a finding that it was expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint. The court noted that Section 340 CrPC requires a preliminary inquiry and a specific finding on expediency. The Judge merely stated that the appellant had committed the offences but did not consider whether the complaint was necessary in the interests of justice. The High Court held that the order was passed without proper application of mind and without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 340 CrPC. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order and the complaint were quashed and set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 340 - Preliminary Inquiry - Necessity of - The court must hold a preliminary inquiry and record a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint - The mere fact that offences under Sections 193 and 194 IPC appear to have been committed is not sufficient - The court must consider whether the complaint is necessary in the interests of justice (Paras 3-5).
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 340 - Expediency in Interests of Justice - The court must record a specific finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint - Failure to do so renders the order invalid - The order must show application of mind to the question of expediency (Paras 4-5).
C) Indian Penal Code - Sections 193 and 194 - False Evidence - Fabrication of Evidence - The court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case that the person has given false evidence or fabricated false evidence - The mere acquittal of accused does not automatically lead to a conclusion that the investigating officer has committed perjury (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against the appellant for alleged offences under Sections 193 and 194 IPC without proper application of mind and without recording a finding that it was expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 11th June 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, and the complaint lodged pursuant thereto, are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC requires a preliminary inquiry and a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint
- Section 341 CrPC provides for appeal against order under Section 340
- Section 195 CrPC relates to offences against public justice
- Sections 193 and 194 IPC deal with punishment for false evidence
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (06) 81
Criminal Appeal No.511 of 1995
Mr.Prakash Naik a/w. Mr.Pawan Mali for Appellant, Mr.Deepak Thakre APP for Respondent State
Shri Laxman Mahadev Sariputra
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 341 CrPC against an order under Section 340 CrPC directing filing of complaint for offences under Sections 193 and 194 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought quashing of the order and complaint made by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 340 CrPC.
Filing Reason
The appellant, a police officer, was the Investigating Officer in a murder case. After acquittal of accused, the Additional Sessions Judge held that the appellant had fabricated false evidence and given false evidence, and initiated proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, acquitted the accused in the murder trial and thereafter held an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC, recording a finding that the appellant had committed offences under Sections 193 and 194 IPC, and made a complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Issues
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge complied with the requirements of Section 340 CrPC before making a complaint?
Whether the order under Section 340 CrPC is sustainable without a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the Additional Sessions Judge did not apply his mind and did not record a finding that it was expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint.
Respondent State supported the order, but the court found no submission that there was material to show expediency.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 340 CrPC, before making a complaint, the court must hold a preliminary inquiry and record a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint. The mere fact that offences appear to have been committed is not sufficient; the court must consider whether the complaint is necessary in the interests of justice. Failure to record such a finding renders the order invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 340 of the Code empowers and permits the court to hold an inquiry into an offence referred to in Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 195, 'which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court.'
It is not – and not even contended – that there was no material before the court to make it appear that offences punishable under Section 193 and 194 of the IPC had been committed.
The learned Judge has not recorded a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint.
Procedural History
The appellant was the Investigating Officer in C.R.No.89 of 1994 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was filed by his successor. The appellant appeared as a witness. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, acquitted all accused and held that the appellant had fabricated false evidence and given false evidence. The Judge held an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC, recorded a finding of offences under Sections 193 and 194 IPC, and made a complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The appellant filed the present appeal under Section 341 CrPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 340, 341, 195
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 193, 194, 302, 34
