Perjury prosecution requires mandatory complaint procedure; Article 142 cannot override statutory safeguards for false evidence convictions.

A conviction for perjury under Section 193 IPC cannot be sustained unless cognizance is taken through the mandatory complaint and inquiry procedure under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC. The Court held that offences involving false evidence or fabricated records require a proper complaint by the competent court and an adequate inquiry before the criminal court; a summary process based on affidavits, show-cause notices, or inquiry reports is not a lawful substitute. It further held that Article 142 cannot be used to bypass express statutory safeguards or create original criminal jurisdiction. The conviction under Section 193 IPC was therefore set aside, while the contempt conviction remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for fabrication of false records could be sustained when the procedure prescribed under Section 195 and Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed, and whether the Supreme Court could itself assume original criminal jurisdiction to impose such conviction.

Analysis: The proceeding concerned an offence of giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding, for which the Code of Criminal Procedure makes a mandatory scheme requiring cognizance only through a written complaint by the court concerned and through the procedure prescribed for such complaint. The Court held that offences of this nature cannot be taken cognizance of dehors the statutory mechanism. It further held that the seriousness of a prosecution for perjury requires an elaborate inquiry and trial before the competent criminal court, and that a summary process based only on show cause notices, affidavits, and inquiry reports is not an adequate substitute for the procedure mandated by law. Relying on the principle that Article 142 cannot be used to disregard express statutory provisions or to create a new jurisdiction, the Court concluded that its earlier order convicting the petitioner under Section 193 IPC had been passed without jurisdiction and without following due procedure.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside as unsustainable in law. The conviction and sentence for contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution of India were left undisturbed, and no complaint under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was directed at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be imposed except through the mandatory complaint procedure and inquiry contemplated by Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Article 142 cannot be invoked to override that statutory scheme.

---