Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
[2013) 12 S.C.R. 607 ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1842 of 2013) NOVEMBER 22, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s.340 rlw s.195(1)(b)
– Perjury in judicial proceedings – Allegations of – Application filed by appellant to proceed against respondent C no.5 u/s.340 r/w s.195(1)(b) – Dismissed by the High Court- Justification – Held: Justified – In order to initiate prosecution for perjury, the court must prima facie reach a conclusion after holding preliminary inquiry that there was a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the court and interfere in the administration of justice – More so, it has to be seen whether such a prosecution is necessary in the interest of justice – Prosecution for perjury is required only where perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is
reasonable, probable or likely – On facts, a mere impression or perception of the appellant would not make the deposition on affidavit by respondent no.5 to be false as being a deliberate and conscious act – There was no deliberate
perjury to misguide the court while making such statement or filing the affidavit. The appellant filed Writ Petition before the High Court seeking transfer of investigation from respondent nos. 3,
4 and 5 to any other senior officer of Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI'). as the said respondents had been abusing their investigating powers and adopted unfair G and improper means. On submission of the counsel for
respondent No. 5 that the investigation report had been finalised and no further investigation was required to be done, the Court directed the competent authority of the A CBI to file an affidavit in this regard. An affidavit was filed by respondent No. 5 on 5-4-2002, wherein it was stated
that the investigation was complete and that no further· investigation was required to be done and a final report was already submitted by him on 11-1-2002 to the B Superintendent of Police.
However, coming to know that certain witnesses had been examined by the CBI subsequent thereto, the appellant preferred an application to proceed against respondent no.5 under Section 340 read with Section
C 195(1)(b) of CrPC. The application was dismissed by the High Court, and therefore the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court o HELD:
1. In order to initiate prosecution for perjury,
the court must prima facie reach a conclusion after holding preliminary inquiry that there has been a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the court and interfere in the administration of justice. More so, it has E to be seen whether such a prosecution is necessary in
the interest of justice. [Para 1 O] [615-A-B] Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421: 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 465; Karunakaran v. T. V. Eachara Warrier & Anr. AIR 1979 SC 290; K. T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v.
F Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1831: 1992 (2) SCR 879; Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr. AIR 1971 SC 1367: 1971 (0) Suppl. SCR 172; Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 2119: 2005 (2) SCR 708 and
R.S. Sujatha v. State of Kamataka & Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 689: G 2010 (14) SCR 227 – relied on. 2.1. In the instant case, the affidavit filed by respondent no. 5 revealed that the respondent no. 5 had
submitted the final report (Part-I) in the aforesaid case on H 11.1.2002to the SP. It is also not in dispute as can be seen from the affidavit dated 5.4.2002, that the report submitted A by the 10 goes to the superior officers for scrutiny and
comments. The High Court had passed a consent order dated 19.4.2002 wherein certain directions had been issued to the Director, CBI to exa~ine the case. The Director, CBI after examining the record of the case, vide B order dated 23.4.2002, asked the 10 to tighten the loose
ends of the case. The said order has not been challenged till date. The High Court while dealing with the case has also, after examining the original records as well as the file and particularly the confidential notings therein, came c to the conclusion that in view of the directions issued by the superior authority, some other witnesses were
examined "to tighten the loose ends of the case" and there was no attempt on the part of the investigating agency to mislead the court. After looking into the 0 voluminous record of the case, what has been done after
filing the affidavit or making the statement was minimal. The prosecution for perjury is required only where perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonable, probable or likely. In the E
circumstances, a mere impression or perception of the appellant would not make the deposition on affidavit by the respondent no. 5 to be false as being a deliberate and conscious act. [Paras 11, 12] [615-C-E, F-G; 616-A-C]
2.2. The High Court rightly reached the conclusion F that there was no deliberate perjury to misguide the court while making such statement or filing the affidavit. In such a fact-situation, the question of allowing application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 (1)(b)
Cr.P.C. was not warranted. [Para 14] [616-E-F] Case Law Reference: 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 465 relied on AIR 1979 SC 290 relied on Para 6 Para 7 1992 (2) SCR 879 relied on Para 7 1971 (0) Suppl. SCR 172 relied on
Para 8 2005 (2) SCR 708 relied on Para 9 2010 (14) SCR 227 relied on Para 9 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1842 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2010 of the
C High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3314 of 2006 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 938 of 2001. K.V. Vishwanathan, Indira Jaising, ASG, Ram Jethmalani, Ranjit Kumar, Lata Krishnamurti, Aman Vachher, Ashutosh
D Dubey, Harsh Sharma, Abhishek Chauhan. Pranav Diesh, Karan Kalia, P.R. Mala, P.N. Puri, Gautam Narayan, M.P. Jha, Dr. Ashok Dhamija, V. Mahana, Shailendra Saini, Sonia Dhamija, Abhishek Kaushik, B.V.B. Das, R. Balasubramanium, Rajiv Nanda, Madhurima Tatia, Anindita Pujari, Sadhana
E Sandhu, Sonakshi M. (for Anil Katiyar), B. Krishna Prasad, Balbir Singh Gupta for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred
F against the impugned judgment and final order dated 16.4.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3314 of 2006 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 938 of 2001, by which the application filed by the appellant to proceed against respondent no. 5 under Section G 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been dismissed.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are H that: A. The appellant had filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 938 of 2001 before the High Court of Delhi seeking transfer of investigation from respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 to any other senior officer of Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter to referred as 'CBI'), as the said respondents had been abusing their
investigating powers and adopted unfair and improper means in RC No. S19/E0006/99 dated 7.12.1999. B. The court made order dated 4.4.2002, on the submission of counsel for the respondent No. 5 that the
investigation report had been finaHsed in the said RC case and c no further investigation was required to be done, directed the competent authority of the CBI to file an affidavit in this regard by 5th April, 2002.
C. An affidavit was filed by respondent No. 5 on 5.4.2002, being investigating officer, wherein it had been stated that the D investigation was complete and that no further investigation was required to be done and a final report Part-1 (FR-1) was
submitted by him on 11.1.2002 to the Superintendent of Police (in short 'SP'). D. However, coming to know that certain witnesses had been examined by the CBI subsequent thereto, the appellant preferred an application under Section 340 r/w 195(1 )(b)
Cr.P.C., which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order. Hence, this appeal.
3. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that not only a
statement was made, but even an affidavit had been filed by G respondent no. 5 before the High Court that the investigation was complete and an investigative report had been finalised by him and no further investigation was required. Therefore, if further witnesses had been examined and certain evidence had been collected, it is evident that the statement so given and A affidavit filed by respondent no. 5 was just to mislead the court and therefore, the court ought to have proceeded against him allowing the application filed by the appellant.
4. Per contra, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 and Ms. Indira Jaising, learned ASG for respondent no. 1 and 2, have vehemently opposed this appeal contending that the submission made before the court and affidavit filed by respondent no.5 that investigation stood concluded, was factually correct. C However, as per the procedure prescribed under the CBI
manual, the investigation report submitted by the 1.0. goes to the superior officers for their comments, approval and directions, and ultimately, it goes to the Director of the CBI. In case the superior authorities have some query in respect of any matter in that report of the investigating officer, they are competent to issue directions to examine a particular witness on a particular point. The investigating officer is bound to do so in order to tie the loose ends of investigation. Such
examination of witness or further investigation does not amount E to the statement made by the 1.0. in the affidavit before the court being false or having been made deliberately and mischievously to misguide the court. As per the requirement of the procedure prescribed under the CBI manual, the 1.0., even after filing such an affidavit, was bound to carry out such directions issued by F the superior authorities.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 G SCC 421, this Court held that no body should be permitted to indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods in the judicial proceedings and if someone does so, it must be dealt with appropriately. In case recourse to a false plea is taken with an oblique motive, it would definitely hinder, hamper or impede the flow of justice and prevent the courts from performing their legal duties.
7. In this context, reference may be made of Section 340 under Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C., under the heading of
"Provisions as to Offences Affecting the Administration of B Justice". This Chapter deals with offences committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the court, or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in the court and enables the court to make a complaint in respect of such
offences if that court is of the view that it is expedient in the C interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence. Clause (b) of Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. authorises such court to examine prima facie as it thinks necessary and then make a complaint thereof in writing after having recorded a finding to that effect as contemplated under Section 340 (1) Cr.P.C. In 0 such a case, the question remains as to whether a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offences and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take any action. Thus, before lodging a complaint, the condition precedent for the court E to be satisfied are that material so produced before the court makes out a prima facie case for a complaint and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have prosecution under Section 193 IPC. (Vide: Karunakaran v. T. V. Eachara Warrier & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 290; and K. T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union F of India, AIR 1992 SC 1831).
8. In the case of Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr., AIR 1971 SC 1367, this Court held: 7. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by G courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to
be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavits is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start H
c prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the
interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a
matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge." (Emphasis added)
9. In Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 2119, this Court observed:
"In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words •court is of
opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice". This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary
enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the
court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of
justice ….. " (See also: R. S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2011) 5 sec 689)
10. In view of the above, law on the issue can be
summarised that in order to initiate prosecution for perjury, the A court must prima facie reach a conclusion after holding preliminary inquiry that there has been a deliberate and
conscious effort to misguide the court and interfere in the administration of justice. More so, it has to be seen whether such a prosecution is necessary in the interest of justice. The case is required to be decided in light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition.
11. The affidavit filed by respondent no. 5 revealed that the respondent no. 5 had submitted the final report (Part-I) in th~ C aforesaid case on 11.1.2002 to the SP. It is also not in dispute as can be seen from the affidavit dated 5.4.2002, that the report submitted by the 10 goes to the superior officers for scrutiny and comments. The High Court had passed a consent order
dated 19.4.2002 wherein certain directions had been issued D to the Director, CBI to examine the case. The Director, CBI after examining the record of the case, vide order dated 23.4.2002, asked the 10 to tighten the loose ends of the case. The said order has not been challenged till date. It is also evident that chargesheet was filed on 5.12.2002 and, subsequently, E
cognizance was taken by the competent court on 10.1.2003. The case was filed under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. by the appellant on 3.5.2006, i.e. after three and a half years.
12. The High Court while dealing with the case has also, after examining the original records as well as the file and particularly the confidential notings therein, came to the conclusion that in view of the directions issued by the superior authority, some other witnesses were examined "to tighten the G loose ends of the case" and there was no attempt on the part of the investigating agency to mislead the court. The order dated 23.4.2002 passed by the Director, CBI has not been
challenged by the appellant and the instant complaint had been filed after 3-1/2 years in 2006. The statements were recorded (2013] 12 S.C.R. A on such directions, however, only to the extent of tightening the loose ends. More so, the provisions of Section 195(1 )(b) etc. are also attracted in such a fact-situation. After looking into the voluminous record of the case, what has been done after filing the affidavit or making the statement was minimal. The
B prosecution for perjury is required only where perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonable, probable or likely. In the circumstances, a mere impression or perception of the appellant would not make the deposition on affidavit by the respondent no. 5 to be false as C being a deliberate and conscious act.
13. The court further observed that the complaint had been filed after 4 years on the basis of mere impression of the appellant and under no circumstances, it could be held that 0 there had been some deliberate and conscious attempt to
mislead the court which may warrant entertaining the application filed by the appellant. 14. We have given serious consideration to the material on record. However, we could not convince ourselves to take E a view contrary to that of the High Court. The High Court has rightly reached the conclusion that there was no deliberate perjury to misguide the court while making such statement or filing the affidavit. In such a fact-situation, the question of allowing application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with
F Section 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. was not warranted. 15. Thus, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal lacks merit and, is accordingly dismissed.
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.