TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: (i) Whether the false affidavits, on the facts found, attracted the offences of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence rather than the offence of making a false declaration; (ii) whether, once the persons proceeded against were witnesses before the court and the alleged offence fell within the scope of the special procedure, action under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was barred by section 476A(6) and section 479A of that Code.
Issue (i): Whether the false affidavits, on the facts found, attracted the offences of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence rather than the offence of making a false declaration.
Analysis: An affidavit is a declaration made on oath and, when filed for use in a judicial proceeding, may amount to false evidence or fabrication of false evidence if the declarant intentionally makes statements intended to be received as evidence and to influence the court. The declarations in the affidavits were capable of being used as evidence in the pending proceeding and were made to bring about an erroneous judicial conclusion on the compromise. On that footing, the conduct fell within the mischief of sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 rather than section 199.
Conclusion: The affidavits were prima facie within the offences of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Issue (ii): Whether, once the persons proceeded against were witnesses before the court and the alleged offence fell within the scope of the special procedure, action under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was barred by section 476A(6) and section 479A of that Code.
Analysis: Section 479A provided a special and exclusive procedure for prosecuting a witness who intentionally gave false evidence or intentionally fabricated false evidence before a civil, revenue or criminal court. Where that procedure was available, section 476A(6) prohibited proceedings under sections 476 to 479 for such prosecution. Since the appellants were witnesses in the inquiry and the alleged falsehood was of the kind covered by section 479A, the High Court ought to have proceeded only under that special provision. The resort to section 476 was therefore incompetent.
Conclusion: The prosecution order under section 476 could not stand and was barred by the special procedure under section 479A read with section 476A(6).
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the impugned prosecution order was made under the wrong procedural provision and had to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a witness before a court is alleged to have intentionally given false evidence or fabricated false evidence for use in the proceeding, the special procedure under section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is exclusive and proceedings under section 476 are barred by section 476A(6).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
