TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal restores appeal despite false affidavit, imposes cost for perjury risk.</h1> <h3>KESORAM RAYON, CALCUTTA Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA</h3> KESORAM RAYON, CALCUTTA Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 583 (Tribunal) Issues: Alleged false averment in affidavit leading to request for legal action under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Consideration of perjury charges and initiation of criminal proceedings. Restoration of appeal despite false averment in affidavit.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue at hand revolves around an alleged false averment made in an affidavit, prompting a request for legal action under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent sought suitable legal action against the appellants for making a false statement in an affidavit dated 10-2-1986, supporting their application for the restoration of an appeal dismissed earlier by the Tribunal. The respondent specifically pointed out a false averment regarding the engagement of an advocate, Shri J.N. Roy, which conflicted with the records of the Tribunal.Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the Tribunal delved into the legal aspects of perjury charges and the initiation of criminal proceedings. The Tribunal acknowledged that an affidavit constitutes evidence under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, and a false affidavit amounts to perjury. However, before sanctioning prosecution for perjury, the Court must assess whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to proceed with such charges. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a prima facie case of a deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, as outlined in the guidelines set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1753.The Tribunal scrutinized the circumstances surrounding the false averment in the affidavit and noted that the appellants had clarified the confusion leading to the incorrect statement. Additionally, during the restoration of the appeal, the Tribunal was made aware of the error but chose not to initiate criminal proceedings. The Tribunal referred to the restoration order dated 17-6-1986, where the appellants admitted the mistake and sought the Tribunal's indulgence, emphasizing the high stakes involved in the appeal.Ultimately, the Tribunal considered the overall situation, including the false averment in the affidavit, and decided to restore the appeal by imposing a cost of Rs. 1,000 to be paid to the Central Revenues in the Treasury. The Tribunal justified its decision by stating that the restoration was necessary due to the significant amount at stake and the potential irreparable harm to the applicant if the appeal was not restored. The Tribunal concluded that under the circumstances, it was not expedient in the interest of justice to sanction prosecution or initiate criminal proceedings against the deponent, leading to the rejection of the application seeking legal action.
TaxTMI 