Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FABRICATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE MAY TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE THE COURT THOUGH USED INSIDE THE COURT HENCE SECTION 195 AND 340 CRPC NOT APPLICABLE 2012 SC

FABRICATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE MAY TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE THE COURT THOUGH USED INSIDE THE COURT HENCE SECTION 195 AND 340 CRPC NOT APPLICABLE 2012 SC

Ratings: (0)|Views: 93 |Likes:

More info:

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/05/2012

pdf

text

original

 
FABRICATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE MAY TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE THE COURT THOUGH USED INSIDE THE COURT HENCE SECTION 195 AND 340 CRPC NOT APPLICABLE 2012 SCJustice B.S. Chauhan, and Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar of the Supreme court ofIndia in the case of Ram Dhan vs State Of U.P.& Anr Decided on 10 April, 2012 held as follows "Be that as it may, the chargesheet has been filed under Sections 177, 181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC. Section 177 IPC deals with an offence furnishing false information. Section 181 IPC deals with false statement on oath. Section 182 IPC deals with false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. Section 195 IPC deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offencepunishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment. At least the provisionsof Sections 177 and 182 deal with the cases totally outside the court. Therefore, the question of attracting the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. arenot attracted. Section 195 IPC makes fabrication of false evidence punishable. It is not necessary that fabrication of false evidence takes place only inside the court as it can also be fabricated outside the court though has been used in the court. Therefore, it may also not attract the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C."Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hema Reddy, reported in AIR 1981SC 1417. In the said decision at page 1424 it is observed, which reads as under:- "The underlying purpose of enacting Section 195(1) (b) and (c) and Section 476 seems to be to control the temptation on the part of the private parties considering themselves aggrieved by the offences mentioned in those sections to start criminal prosecutions on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds inspiredby a revengeful desire to harass or spite their opponents. These offences havebeen selected for the court's control because of their direct impact on the judicial process. It is the judicial process, in other words the administration of public justice, which is the direct and immediate object or victim of these offences and it is only by misleading the courts and thereby perverting the due course of law and justice that the ultimate object of harming the private party is designed to be realised. As the purity of the proceedings of the court is directlysullied by the crime the Court is considered to be the only party entitled to consider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party. The private party designed ultimately to be injured through the offence against the administration of public justice is undoubtedly entitled to move the court for persuadingit to file the complaint. But such party is deprived of the general right recognized by Section 190 Cr.P.C. of the aggrieved parties directly initiating the criminal proceedings."The Supreme Court in a decision in the matter of M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, reported in (2000)1 SCC 278 has observed which reads as under:- "Section 340CrPC prescribes the procedure as to how a complaint may be preferred under Section 195 CrPC................. It is in respect of such offences the court has jurisdiction to proceed under Section 340 CrPC and a complaint outside the provisions of Section 340 CrPC cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or criminal courtunder its inherent jurisdiction."N. Natarajan v. B.K.Subha Rao, reported in AIR 2003 SC 541 as well as the decision in the matter of M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2004 SCC (Cri.) 118, which reads as under:- "In respect of offences adverted to in Section195, Cr.P.C. there is a restriction that the same cannot be entertained unlessa complaint is made by a court because the offence is stated to have been committed in relation to the proceedings in that Court. Section 340, Cr.P.C. is invoked to get over the bar imposed under Section 195, Cr.P.C.""Sections 195 and 340 do not control or circumscribe the power of the police toinvestigate under the Criminal Procedure Code. Once investigation is completed then the embargo in Section 195 would come into play and the court would not be c

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->