Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking criminal proceedings against the petitioner for alleged perjury. The dispute arose from a tenancy suit where the respondent-lessors claimed the petitioner-company was not protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, due to its paid-up share capital exceeding Rs. 1 crore. The petitioner contended that its share capital had been reduced via buy-back before the termination of tenancy. The trial court rejected this claim, finding discrepancies in evidence, including a balance sheet dated 19.09.2008 where Column 12 showed the same weighted average number of shares for two consecutive years despite the alleged reduction. The trial court's finding on jurisdiction was affirmed by the appellate bench and the High Court, and the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 09.04.2018. Subsequently, the applicant (respondent No. 4) filed the present application alleging that the petitioner had made handwritten interpolations in the balance sheet (crossing out 'Weighted Average' and adding 'as on 1/4/07') for the first time before the Supreme Court to mislead the Court. The applicant argued that the original balance sheet before the trial court did not contain such interpolations. The petitioner countered that the certified copies of Exhibits 13 and 82 from the trial court record already contained the same handwritten corrections, and the applicant had not raised any objection during trial or cross-examination. The Supreme Court examined the records and found that the interpolations were indeed present in the certified copies from the trial court. The Court held that there was no prima facie case of perjury or forgery, as the documents were not manipulated for the first time before the Supreme Court. The application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury - Section 340 CrPC read with Section 195(1)(b) CrPC - Initiation of Criminal Proceedings - The Court held that for initiating proceedings for perjury, there must be a prima facie case that false evidence was deliberately given. The interpolations in the balance sheet were present in the certified copies from the trial court record, and the applicant failed to raise the issue during trial or cross-examination. Hence, no case for perjury was made out. (Paras 1-12) B) Evidence - Handwritten Interpolations - Certified Copies - The Court noted that the handwritten corrections in Column 12 of the balance sheet were present in Exhibits 13 and 82 from the trial court proceedings. The applicant did not challenge the authenticity of these documents at the trial stage, and the interpolations were not introduced for the first time before the Supreme Court. (Paras 10-12) C) Rent Control - Jurisdiction - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 3(1)(b) - The preliminary issue of jurisdiction based on paid-up share capital had attained finality, and the perjury application was filed after the dismissal of the SLP. The Court found no merit in the allegation that the Petitioner misled the Court. (Paras 2-4, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner committed perjury by submitting a balance sheet with handwritten interpolations before the Supreme Court, warranting initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) CrPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the application under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, finding no prima facie case of perjury or forgery. The Court held that the handwritten interpolations were present in the certified copies from the trial court record, and the applicant failed to challenge them at the appropriate stage. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Perjury
- Section 340 CrPC
- Section 195(1)(b) CrPC
- Forgery
- Burden of Proof
- Prima Facie Case
- Abuse of Process
