In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is

necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or
misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage
or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice
are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to
make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost.

Read a judgment about the above in Vijay Syal Vs. State of Punjab

PROSECUTION OF PERJURY:
1. Legal obligation to state the truth
2. The making of a false statement .
3. Belief in its falsity .

Criteria for establishing offense:

(a) The statement is false
(b) The parson making the statement knew or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be
true.
(c) The statement was made intentionally.

All three criteria must be proved for conviction. Intention is most important.
False evidence is said to be given intentionally, if, the person making the statement is aware or
has knowledge that it is false and has deliberately used such evidence in a judicial proceeding with
the intention of deceiving the court .

ELEMENTS OF PERJURY:
1) False statement made by a person Who is —
a) Bound by an oath
b) By an express provision of law
c) A declaration which a person is bound by law to make on any subject
d) Which statement or declaration is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or
does not believe to be true.

2. Oath must be administered by a person of competent authority.

The authority must be competent to administer the oath. The proceedings where oath is
administered must be sanctioned by law.

3. Express provisions of law include—Plaints, Written Statements, and other pleadings.

a)CPC casts a legal duty to speak the truth
b)Verification of pleadings is a legal obligation.
4. Affidavits are declaration made under oath.
5. A statement could be verbal or otherwise.
a) Statement that he believes a thing which he does not believe.
b) Statement that he knows a thing which he does not know.
c)Statement that he knows to be false or does not believe to be true .
d) Statement need not be on a point material to the proceedings.
Due to this the related other section which can be used are :

IPO 191: Giving false evidence, judicial perjury

IPO 192: Fabricating false evidence
IPO 193: punishment for offenses u/s 191 & 192 IPO
IPO 194 & 195: Aggravated forms of offenses u/s 191 & 192 IPO
IPO 196 to 200: Offenses punishable in the same way as giving or fabricating false evidence
IPO 201 to 229: Offenses against public justice

OFFENCES U/S 195 CrPC:

(a) IPO 172 to IPO 188 relate to contempts of the lawful authority of public servants and also of
attempt to commit or conspiracy to commit such offense or abatement there of.

Interna
l to
Wipro
 (b) IPO 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such
offense is alleged to have
been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court.

CrPC 195:
Generally any person can lodge complaint of an offence and set the law in motion. Exception to
this rule is offences. Specified u/s 195 CrPC. Section 195 lays down rules to be followed by the
court to take cognizance of an offence specified under it. Court has full discretion in deciding
whether any prosecution is necessary or not.
Considerations for sanctioning prosecution:
a) Administration of justice is not hampered
b) Not to be used as a means for wreaking vengeance by people
c) Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order
prosecution.
d) Judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of administration of justice.
e) When police finds that complaint was false and case is cancelled u/s 173 CrPC, the police can
start proceeding u/s 211 IPO against person who lodged false complaint.

CrPC 340:
Section 340 CrPC lays down directions for the guidance of the court which desires to initiate
prosecution in respect of an offence covered under IPO 195. Court can take action and make a
complaint to concerned magistrate u/s 340 either suo motu or on an application made to it on that
behalf. Sanction of the public servant court is a must for offenses in (a) under Criteria for
establishing offence. Sanction of the court is a must for offenses in (b). under Criteria for
establishing offense. Any Civil, Revenue or criminal court can proceed under this section. Person
against who proceedings are initiated has no right to participate in preliminary Inquiry. The trial
for the offence will be held by the magistrate based on complaint by the court acting u/s 340
sanctioning prosecution. The order is appealable only once and no second appeal or revision lies.
Requirements for starting prosecution:
The court is not bound to start prosecution. Only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and
affects administration of justice. Contradictory evidence is not enough for prosecution. Offence
must have been committed intentionally. Perjury should appear to be deliberate and conscious.
Conviction is reasonable probable or likely. Reasonable foundation for the charge must exist.
Statement given by complainant in FIR u/s 154 cannot be basis of prosecution u/s 340.
Statements given to police u/s 161 are not evidence.

PROCEDURE:
Receive application or suo motu – application can be filed by a person not party to the proceedings
in relation to which the offense is committed. The court where application is filed only decides if
inquiry should be made Hold preliminary inquiry (not essential in law). Record findings . Make a
complaint in writing – include offence, facts on which it is based and evidence available for proving
it. The judge has to sign the complaint himself. Forward it to a first class Magistrate having
jurisdiction.

IPC 192:
No condition to be bound by oath. Reasonable prospect of proceedings and intention to use the
fabricated evidence in such proceedings. Proceedings need not be in progress. Material omission is
made in an entry or a statement Affidavit- making a document containing false statement to be
used as evidence in a judicial proceeding.

Criteria:
Particular Intention that false document so made should appear in evidence in a judicial
proceeding. Reasonable prospect of using the document is sufficient to establish offence. Should
be material to the result of the proceedings- Judge is made to entertain an erroneous opinion
touching nay point material to the result of such proceeding based on such fabricated evidence.
IPO 199: False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence.
IPO 200: Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false.
*********
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Court-serves-notice-to-woman-for-false-
evidence/articleshow/5337893.cms
****************

Interna
l to
Wipro
 Criminal Misc. Application No.30509 of 2009
Garima Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another ; Hon. A.K. Roopanwal, J.
In this petition orders dated 15.7.09 and 7.10.09 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Allahabad have been challenged.
It appears from the record that in a divorce case an application was moved by the husband that
the lady had wrongly filed an affidavit that she is not serving in Delhi Public School, Arail, Naini,
District Allahabad and therefore, action be taken against her. The lady was ready for inquiry in the
matter and the court vide order dated 21.11.06 ordered that the inquiry be made in the matter
and the defaulter be punished with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Subsequent thereto the report from the
college was obtained and it was reported by the college that the version of the lady was wrong. In
such situation, the court vide order dated 15.7.09 imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- upon the lady
(applicant). By the order dated 7.10.09 the objections filed by the applicant against the
maintainability of the proceedings under Section 340, Cr.P.C. instituted by the husband were
rejected. Heard Mr. A.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the
record.
It has been argued by Mr. Tripathi that under the provisions of Section 340, Cr.P.C. the court can
make only preliminary inquiry and the final order which may be in the form of imposing fine can be
passed by the court of competent jurisdiction and the court of competent jurisdiction would be that
court in which the complaint would be filed by the court in which the perjury was committed. The
court which made the preliminary inquiry had no jurisdiction to finally conclude the matter and
impose the fine, therefore, the order dated 15.7.09 is bad and is liable to be quashed. Regarding
the order dated 7.10.09 it was argued by Mr. Tripathi that once a wrong order was passed by the
court on 15.7.09 it should have been reviewed and when it was not reviewed, hence, the order
dated 7.10.09 is also bad and is liable to be quashed.
So far as the order dated 15.7.09 is concerned, in that regard I am of the view that the matter is
liable to be taken further for hearing as there is some substance in the argument advanced by Mr.
Tripathi. So far as the argument regarding the order dated 7.10.09 is concerned, in that regard it
has been argued by Mr. Tripathi that the court cannot initiate dual proceedings. Once the matter
was concluded vide order dated 15.7.09 there could be no propriety at all to continue the
proceedings under Section 340, Cr.P.C. Issue notice to O.P. No.2 to file counter affidavit within 2
weeks’. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within 1 week thereafter.
Till then, operation of the orders dated 15.7.09 and 7.10.09 passed by the Principal Judge Family
Court, Allahabad in misc. case no.2 of 2008, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. Garima Srivastava,
under Section 340, Cr.P.C. shall remain stayed. Dated:19.1.2010/T. Sinha.

UNCLEAN HANDS
1. 2010(4) Civil court cases 480 (AP)   AP High court on 09-06-2010 in Yalala Swapna vs
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ltd. —- clean hands – suppression of material facts – not entitled
to any relief, interim or final.  http://wp.me/p1HnJY-l6
2. Oswal Fats and Oils limited vs Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division in 2010(4) SCC 728 —
if found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure system of
justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person.                
http://wp.me/p1HnJY-l9
3. Shiv Dutt vs Dharambir on 21-08-2007 —– 2008 (1) Civil court cases 781 (P&H) —- a party not
coming to court with clean hands is not entitled to any discretionary relief.

4. Balwant Singh vs Jagdish Singh on 08-07-2010  —– 2010(4) Civil court cases 551
(SC) DOUBLE BENCH —- a person seeking aid of court for exercising its discretionary power is
expected to state correct facts and not to state lies before the
Court http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/473980/

Interna
l to
Wipro