GLS University

Faculty of Law

Case Analysis Assignment

On
Law of Contract

Name of the Student: Harsh, Aradhna, Preet, Abdul, and Hasmita

Faculty Name: Forum Pandya and Jiya Matharani

Semester: 1
Division: A

Subject Code: 233401105

Roll No.: 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56
 False Evidence and Offenses Against Public Justice

Introduction

Evidence is any sort of proof legally submitted at trial (authorized by the court) that is
designed to convince the judge and/or jury of the claimed material facts of the case. Any
statement made under oath that the court requires or permits and any document that is
presented in accordance with its instructions constitute evidence. There are two forms of
evidence, according to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act:

1. Oral
2. Documentary Evidence

False evidence is a statement or piece of documentation used in court that is known to be false or
is suspected to be untrue. Criminal evidence includes any tangible or intangible proof offered to
establish a crime.

False Evidence

According to Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, offering false evidence is defined as
making a statement that one does not believe to be true or believes to be false when under
oath or under an express legal obligation to speak the truth. False statements or evidence
provided by a person can be expressed verbally or in writing (orally or inferentially). Perjury
is another name for Section 191 of the English Perjury Act of 1911. Consider a situation
where Z's kid is asked to test Z's handwriting to determine if it is his father's handwriting or
not. Even after realizing that this is not Z's handwriting, he still claims in court that it is Z's
handwriting. Perjury is the common name for this crime. In the same scenario, where Z's son
is called to testify about his handwriting but is less certain and says, "Although I am not
confident that it was not Z's handwriting," his son cannot be held accountable under Section
193 of the Indian Penal Code because his intention was not to lie. False evidence is a copy of
the sales deed presented in court that has been altered or manufactured. The essence of
perjury is providing false evidence. Let's use a well-known scenario where X is sworn to
secrecy and must only speak the truth about a case where Y is being investigated for a murder
that occurred in Delhi. Now, X claims that Y was present in Shimla with me on May 20,
2019, the day of the murder. However, X presents bogus proof and falsehoods. It is an
obvious instance of perjury.
Offences Against Public Justice

Two types exist:

1. causing someone to vanish

2. Misleading data

The purpose of both is to scrutinize the criminal. Consider the case of two pals, A and B. A
has committed the murder of X, and B assists him in concealing the body of X and shielding
A from the accusations, which makes it a violation of Section 201 since it resulted in the loss
of evidence. B intends to investigate the criminal.

CASE LAWS

1. M/S Bandekar Brothers Pvt.Ltd. vs Prasad Vassudev Keni (2020)

Facts:

On September 2, 2020, a criminal appeal in this particular case was decided. The
Criminal Procedure Code's Section 190, the Indian Penal Code's Sections 191 and
192, which deal with providing false testimony and creating false testimony,
respectively, were all addressed by the Supreme Court in this case.

According to the case's circumstances, the complainant first submitted two complaints
under Sections 340 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as the "Cr.P.C. "). In the complaint, it was claimed that the accused had violated
Sections 190 and 191 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as the IPC) by
creating and giving false testimony. The defendants are accused of forging debit notes
and making false entries in bank records. Following this, the complainant filed a
petition to have these complaints changed to private ones, citing the Iqbal case in
support. The Judicial Magistrate issued a procedure under Sections 191, 192, and 193
of the IPC after converting the aforementioned complaint. The Sessions Court granted
the revision petition and ruled that in addition to the restrictions under Section
195(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, those under Section 340 of the same
code must also be strictly adhered to. A writ petition was filed to dispute this at the
High Court, but it was denied.

According to the complainant's claims, the respondent created and fraudulently

provided the debit notes in an effort to convince the other party that the complainants
owed money to it. The complainant's attorney used the Iqbal case as authority since
the fabricated documents were created before the lawsuit's hearings. A private
complaint would therefore be maintainable because the precedent is applicable. In
addition, he cited a number of additional decisions to support his claim that the High
Court's use of The Iqbal case superseded the case and that it applied to both Section
195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii).

While the respondent's attorney claimed that only Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), as decided
by the High Court, was covered by the judgement in the Iqbal case. "The debit notes,
which were the sheet-anchor of the appellants' case, cannot be said to have been
forged within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC, as the debit notes,
even if dishonestly or fraudulently made, had to be made within the intention of
causing it to be believed that such debit notes were made by a person whom the
person was making it knows that it was not made," the judge stated. Consider reading
the complaints all at once. In such situation, it will be obvious that all of the
complaints were concerning or related to crimes under Sections 191 and 192 of the
IPC that were or would be utilised in legal proceedings, and as a result, they perfectly
fit the criteria of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC. Additionally, he claimed that
following the conversion of the case into a private one, the Magistrate merely issued
the process in accordance with Sections 191 to 193 of the IPC, and the appellants did
not oppose this decision.

Regarding Iqbal's case, it was decided that the document that is allegedly forged
should be custodia legis post which the allegedly forged act takes place in
circumstances that were under the purview of Section 195 (1)(b)(i) of the CrPC. A
private complaint would thus be maintainable if it were the other way around.

The Court noted this and concluded that if the facts described in a complaint attract
the provisions of Sections 191 to 193 of the IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC
applies. The primary necessity was to clearly distinguish between the two sections. It
is crucial that the offence be claimed to have been committed in, or in connection
with, any case before any Court once certain provisions of the IPC are invoked.
Therefore, it is evident that the offence punished under these provisions need not have
been committed in connection with any court action but may also be an offence that is
suspected to have been committed in connection with any court proceeding.

Contrary to Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure

Code refers to offenses described in Section 463 and punishable under Sections 471,
475, or 476 of the IPC when such offenses are alleged to have been committed in
relation to a document produced or given as evidence in a proceeding in any court.
 The words "or in relation to" are conspicuously absent from Section 195(1)(b)(ii),
making it obvious that if those provisions are triggered, the alleged infringement must
have been committed in reference to a document that is custodia.

Judgment:

Writ petitions submitted in opposition to this ruling have been denied by the contested
decision. We had the impression that the infant and the bathwater were tossed out
simultaneously. Even if it is true that the conversion order and subsequent issuance of
process on a private complaint may not be correct, the two complaints as they were
initially filed may still be pursued. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to
have demoted the parties to the position before the initial complaints had been
changed into private complaints after the Magistrate's ruling had been overturned.
now this hasn't happened, we believe Shri Mishra is correct when he claims that even
though supposedly major violations have been established in accordance with
Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC, the complaints have now been dismissed. Therefore,
in accordance with Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC, we reinstate the two complaints
in their original format so that further action can be taken.

2. Achhar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021)

Facts:

In this instance, the appellants, who had been wronged by the Himachal Pradesh High
Court's ruling, appealed to the Supreme Court of India, where they contested the High
Court's decision to nullify the Sessions Court's acquittal ruling.

The appellant's Nos. 1 and 2, in this case, were found not guilty by the Sessions Court
by using the presumption of innocence after being tried under Sections 452, 326, 323,
and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, respectively.

The appellant's attorney argued that additional review by the High Court according to
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not required as long as the
trial court's opinion was a feasible view, citing the 2012 case of Murugesan & 16 Ors
v. State Tr. Insp. of Police.

The main issue before the Supreme Court of India was whether the learned High
Court's intervention with the trial court's judgment of acquittal in exercising its
powers under Section 378 of the CrPC was permissible.
 Judgment:

The presumption of innocence of the accused until proven guilty by a competent court
is one of the most significant aspects of criminal law, according to the Supreme Court
of India in this case. In the current case, the trial court found the accused not guilty
after carefully considering all the available records, evidence, and witnesses.
Although this rule cannot be extended to reflect the contours of appeal against the
order of appeal under Section 378 CrPC, which is limited to determining whether the
view of the trial court was possible or not, there is no prohibition on the High Court to
re-appreciate the evidence during an appeal against the judgment under Section 378 of
CrPC if there are two possible views.

As a result, the Supreme Court of India in this case confirmed the conviction of both
accused parties, one of whom was accountable for striking an elderly woman in the
head with a stick, resulting in her instantaneous death. The court further held that the
testimony of witnesses was exaggerated suggesting the elements and ingredients of
truth, and in situations where a significant portion of the evidence was insufficient but
the remaining portion of the evidence establishes the guilt of the accused, a conviction
can be based on it. The case of Gangadhar Behera And Ors vs. State Of Orissa (2002)
was cited in support of this statement.

3. Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi vs. The State Of Maharashtra (2023)

Facts:

The fact of the case that the charges are serious, do involve large financial magnitude
which is pertaining to misappropriation of the public exchequer or are pertaining to
misuse of funds of local self-body, shall not themselves constitute a ground for
rejection of bail.

“Bare imputation or allegation of the offense being serious would never be adequate
or to be seen in isolation”

ISSUE:

In order to appreciate the grievance made by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate

vide her letter dated 26th February 2009, a certain background is required to be
mentioned in a nutshell. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2473/2006 was preferred by one
Shri Ramprasad Gupta, an Advocate by profession for directions to the Police to
investigate the matter of alleged encounter of his brother Ramnarayan Gupta. On
11.11.2006 or thereabout said Ramnarayan Gupta was fatally injured in a gunfire
opened by a team of police officials, led by present contemnor P.I. Suryawanshi. Said
alleged encounter occurred in the Seven Bungalow area in Versova, Andheri (W).In
Writ Petition No. 2473/2006 Magisterial enquiry was directed u/s 176(1A) of the
Cr.P.C. Said enquiry was conducted by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway
Mobile Court, Smt. R.K. Shaikh is within the territorial jurisdiction of said Andheri
Mobile Court the incident of the encounter took place.

JUDGEMENT:

In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be advantageous to know what is

"criminal contempt.". Criminal contempt is defined as per Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as follows:

2(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written,
or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever, which are as follows;

1. scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of,

any court; or
2. prejudices, or interferes with, or tends to interfere with, the due course of any
judicial proceeding; or
3. interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner

CONCLUSION