TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether sanction for prosecution under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 should be granted where a witness made contradictory statements, one under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and the other in court, but the Court could not determine which statement was false.
Analysis: The power under Section 476 depends on the Court being satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice to institute a prosecution for an offence covered by Section 195, including perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Where two contradictory statements exist, it is essential to determine which statement was false before sanctioning prosecution. If the court is not satisfied that the later statement in court was false, and it is possible that the earlier statement under Section 164 was the false one, prosecution should not be sanctioned, because doing so would encourage adherence to a false statement and may imperil the administration of justice.
Conclusion: Sanction for prosecution was not justified, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 should not be sanctioned unless the Court is satisfied which of the contradictory statements is false and that, in the interests of justice, prosecution is expedient.
TaxTMI 
