Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mahadev Savla Patil, filed a criminal appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 16 July 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, rejecting his application under Section 340 CrPC. The background of the case involves a civil suit where the respondent no.1, the Village Development Officer, was one of the defendants. After the trial court decreed the suit against him, the respondent filed a civil appeal in the District Court at Karad, along with a delay condonation application (Delay Condonation Application No.48/10) because the appeal was filed late. The appellant, who was the respondent in that delay condonation application, opposed it. During the hearing on 23 April 2011, the appellant pointed out that the delay condonation application had a blank space where the precise period of delay was supposed to be mentioned. The matter was adjourned to 30 June 2011. On that date, the blank had been filled in with the words 'one year four months'. The appellant alleged that this amounted to a false statement and filed an application under Section 340 CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, seeking prosecution of the respondent for perjury. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application, holding that no prima facie case was made out. The appellant then appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the facts and noted that the blank was filled before the hearing and that the respondent had not made any false statement on oath. The court held that the mere filling of a blank in an application did not constitute an offence under Section 193 IPC or any other provision. The court also observed that the appellant's application under Section 340 CrPC was not maintainable as there was no false statement made before the court. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury - Section 340 CrPC - Complaint for Offence of False Statement - The appellant sought prosecution of respondent for making a false statement in a delay condonation application by initially leaving a blank and later filling it - The court held that no prima facie case was made out as the blank was filled before the hearing and the respondent had not made any false statement on oath - The application under Section 340 was rightly rejected (Paras 3-6). B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Section 341 CrPC - Appeal Against Rejection of Complaint - The appellant filed an appeal under Section 341 CrPC against the order rejecting his application under Section 340 CrPC - The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contention that the respondent had committed perjury (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the appellant's application under Section 340 CrPC for filing a complaint against the respondent for allegedly making a false statement in a delay condonation application
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application under Section 340 CrPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC requires a preliminary inquiry and a finding that it is expedient in the interest of justice to file a complaint
- Section 341 CrPC provides for appeal against order under Section 340
- Condonation of delay application can be amended before hearing
