1966 (2) TMI 103 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns Prosecution Order; Affidavit Offenses Require Specific Procedure Under Indian Penal Code.

The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the HC's order for prosecution under Section 476 of CrPC. The Court determined that the false affidavits by the ... Applicability of Section 479A procedure - Bar on proceedings under Sections 476-479 where Section 479A applies - Fabrication of false evidence - Giving false evidence on oath - Offence under Section 199 IPC vis-a -vis Sections 191/192 IPCGiving false evidence on oath - Fabrication of false evidence - Offence under Section 199 IPC vis-a -vis Sections 191/192 IPC - Whether the affidavits sworn by the appellants constituted offences under Sections 191/192 IPC (and thus the gravamen was giving or fabricating false evidence) rather than falling within Section 199 IPC. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that an affidavit is a declaration made under oath and that knowingly swearing a false affidavit falls within the offence of giving false evidence under Section 191 IPC. Further, making a document containing a false statement with the intention that it appear in evidence and influence the judicial proceeding falls within the definition of fabricating false evidence under Section 192 IPC. The affidavits in question were tendered to the High Court to be taken into consideration and were intended to appear in evidence and to cause the court to form an erroneous opinion regarding the compromise. On this basis the Court concluded the conduct of the appellants was prima facie within Sections 191/192 rather than being confined to the mischief of Section 199. [Paras 6, 7, 8]The affidavits constituted prima facie offences of giving or fabricating false evidence under Sections 191/192 IPC rather than being limited to an offence under Section 199 IPC.Applicability of Section 479A procedure - Bar on proceedings under Sections 476-479 where Section 479A applies - Whether proceedings under Section 476 could be invoked when the procedure under Section 479A applied to witnesses who had given or fabricated false evidence. - HELD THAT: - Section 479A prescribes a special procedure where a court is of opinion that a person appearing as a witness has intentionally given or fabricated false evidence, requiring the court to record a finding at the time of its judgment or final order and, after affording the witness an opportunity to be heard, to make and forward a written complaint to a Magistrate of the first class (with specified safeguards). Sub section (6) bars proceedings under Sections 476-479 for prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence if proceedings may be taken under Section 479A. The appellants were witnesses before the Court and their conduct fell within the scope of Section 479A; therefore the High Court should have followed the procedure under Section 479A. Having not done so, the Court below could not properly invoke Section 476 for ordering prosecution. [Paras 5, 8, 9]Action under Section 476 was barred because the special procedure of Section 479A applied; the High Court's order directing prosecution under Section 476 was not maintainable.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the High Court's order directing prosecution under Section 476 is set aside and any complaint filed pursuant thereto shall be withdrawn, because the appellants' conduct fell within the scope of giving or fabricating false evidence and the special procedure under Section 479A governed such prosecutions. Issues:Appeal under section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment and order of the High Court at Patna for making false affidavits. Interpretation of Section 479A in relation to the invocation of Section 476 for prosecution. Determination of whether the false affidavits constituted an offence under Section 199, Section 191, or Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code.Analysis:The case involved an appeal under section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Baban Singh and his wife against a High Court order to file a complaint against them for making false affidavits. The High Court had ordered the Registrar to hold an inquiry regarding a compromise in a previous case, where Baban Singh and his wife were accused of fabricating evidence. The Registrar reported the compromise as genuine, leading to the High Court accepting the report. However, a question arose regarding the invocation of Section 476 due to the introduction of Section 479A, which deals with false evidence. The High Court ordered the Registrar to file a complaint under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants, leading to the current appeal.The Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of Section 479A, which provides a special procedure for cases of false evidence in judicial proceedings. The Court noted that Baban Singh and his wife had intentionally fabricated false evidence by making false affidavits in the previous case. The Court emphasized that if false evidence was given by a witness, action under Section 479A alone could be taken. Since the appellants were witnesses who fabricated false evidence, the High Court should have followed the procedure under Section 479A for prosecution. Therefore, the Court concluded that the action under Section 476 was not permissible due to the provisions of Section 479A.The Court further delved into whether the false affidavits constituted an offence under Section 199, Section 191, or Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code. It was determined that the offence committed by Baban Singh and his wife fell within the ambit of Sections 191 and 192, as they had sworn falsely under oath and fabricated evidence intended for use in a judicial proceeding. The Court highlighted that the false affidavits were meant to mislead the court, making the offence more aligned with Sections 191 and 192 rather than Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order for prosecution of the appellants. The Court emphasized that the complaint, if filed, should be withdrawn, as the action under Section 476 was not valid in this case due to the applicability of Section 479A and the nature of the offence committed by the appellants.