Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for False Evidence Complaints: Narendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 04, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 84
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a person directly file a criminal complaint for false evidence in court, or does it require the court’s involvement? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning a complaint filed under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The court clarified the procedure for initiating such complaints, emphasizing the necessity of a formal complaint from the court itself, rather than a private individual. This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings and the specific mechanisms in place to address false evidence.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, with the opinion authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Case Background

The appellant, Sh. Narendra Kumar Srivastava, was an Engineering Assistant at Doordarshan Kendra, Motihari. He had disputes regarding his pay scale revisions, which led to various legal proceedings. Initially, the pay scale of Engineering Assistants was revised from Rs. 1400-Rs. 2600 to Rs. 2000-Rs. 3000 with effect from 01.01.1986. Later, the replacement pay scale was fixed at Rs. 6500-Rs. 10,500 with effect from 01.01.1996. The Employees Association sought the grant of 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP) in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-Rs. 13,500, which was not allowed, leading to an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT allowed the application on 07.09.2009. However, the High Court overturned the CAT order, stating that ACP should be granted on an individual basis.

Subsequently, the appellant’s representation for the 1st ACP was refused, leading to another application before the CAT, which was dismissed on 13.02.2013. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was disposed of on 29.06.2014, directing the respondents to consider the representation. Alleging non-compliance, the appellant filed a contempt petition. In response, the respondents filed a show-cause affidavit, which was accepted by the High Court, and the contempt case was dropped. Instead of challenging the order, the appellant filed a private complaint before the Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Motihari, alleging an offense punishable under Section 193 of the IPC against the respondents, claiming they made false statements in their show-cause affidavit.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Motihari, took cognizance of the private complaint filed by the appellant and summoned the respondents on 22.12.2016. The respondents challenged this order before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition on 30.03.2017, setting aside the Magistrate’s order. The High Court held that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC on the basis of a private complaint.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Section 193 of the IPC defines and punishes the giving of false evidence in a judicial proceeding. It states:

“193. Punishment for false evidence.—Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine…”

Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. outlines the procedure for prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice, and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. Specifically, it bars courts from taking cognizance of certain offences, including those under Section 193 of the IPC, unless a complaint is made by the court itself. It states:

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.—(1) No Court shall take cognizance —(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court…”

Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. outlines the procedure to be followed by the court for initiating a complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. It states:

“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195.—(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,—(a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction…”

The interplay of these provisions is crucial to understanding the judgment. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. acts as a bar on the power of a court to take cognizance of certain offences unless the court itself makes a complaint. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. provides the procedure for the court to make such a complaint.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the respondents had filed false affidavits in the contempt petition, which were prepared outside the court.
• He argued that based on these false affidavits, the High Court dropped the contempt case.
• The appellant submitted that it was not mandatory to obtain prior sanction for filing a private complaint under Section 193 of the IPC.
• He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493, to support his argument that a private complaint was maintainable.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the punishment for giving false evidence in judicial proceedings is stipulated in Section 193 of the IPC.
• They contended that the law governing the taking of cognizance of such an offense is contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
• The respondents highlighted that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. bars a court from taking cognizance of an offense punishable under Section 193 of the IPC unless it is based on a complaint in writing by the court where the offense is alleged to have been committed.
• They argued that since no such complaint was made, the High Court was justified in quashing the Magistrate’s order.
• The respondents relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and another, (2000) 1 SCC 278, to support their position.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant is that he tried to distinguish the present case from the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. by relying on the case of Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of an offense punishable under Section 193 of the IPC on the basis of a private complaint?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the procedure for initiating prosecution for false evidence:

• Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774, Supreme Court of India: The Court held that prosecution under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. could be initiated only by the sanction of the court and only if the same appears to be deliberate and conscious.
• Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 406, Supreme Court of India: The Court held that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency.
• M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and another, (2000) 1 SCC 278, Supreme Court of India: The Court held that private complaints are absolutely barred in relation to an offense said to have been committed under Section 193 IPC and that the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory.

On the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C.:

• Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493, Supreme Court of India: The Court held that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines and punishes the giving of false evidence in a judicial proceeding.
• Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Outlines the procedure for prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice, and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
• Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Prescribes the procedure for making a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need to uphold the procedural safeguards established by Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the provision is mandatory and aims to prevent frivolous and vexatious complaints related to offences committed in relation to judicial proceedings. The court also highlighted the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure that prosecutions for false evidence are initiated only when it is in the larger interest of justice.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the argument based on Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493, but distinguished it by stating that it dealt with a different clause of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., which requires a complaint from the court for offences under Section 193 of the IPC. The court also reiterated the principle that every incorrect statement does not warrant prosecution for perjury and that such prosecution should be ordered only when it is in the larger interest of the administration of justice.

The court quoted from M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and another, (2000) 1 SCC 278, stating, “Provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that section.”

The court also quoted from Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774, stating, “The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely.”

The court also observed that, “The object of this Section is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in court during the time when the document or evidence was in custodia legis and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action.”

The court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the outcome.

Key Takeaways

• A private individual cannot directly file a criminal complaint for false evidence (Section 193 of the IPC) in a judicial proceeding.
• A complaint for false evidence must be initiated by the court where the false evidence was allegedly given.
• The procedure under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory, and any deviation can lead to the quashing of the proceedings.
• Courts should exercise judicial discretion when ordering prosecution for false evidence and should do so only in the larger interest of justice.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the costs imposed by the High Court but upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the Magistrate’s order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable as no specific amendments were discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a private complaint for an offense punishable under Section 193 of the IPC, when the offense is alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in any court, is not maintainable. The court reiterated the mandatory nature of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., which requires a complaint from the court itself for such offenses. This judgment reinforces the existing position of law and clarifies the procedure to be followed in such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified that a private complaint for false evidence in a judicial proceeding is not maintainable. The court emphasized that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that such complaints must originate from the court where the false evidence was allegedly given. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the need to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings. The court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the Magistrate’s order, thereby reinforcing the established legal framework.