The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its order dated 14.12.2022 in a commercial civil suit has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against defendants after the Registrar (Vigilance)'s inquiry revealed that they placed a fabricated Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order on record as part of a compilation of documents handed over to the court. While referring the case to Hon’ble Chief Justice for initiating a Criminal Contempt case under Section 18 of "Contempt of Courts Act," the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that the Defendants' conduct is an attempt to interfere and obstruct judicial proceedings and the administration of justice, which constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
The Hon’ble High Court in its order has relied on Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma[1], when the Supreme Court on finding that a forged and fabricated document to resist the transfer of a matrimonial proceeding could amount to criminal contempt of court in Transfer Petition held that“ if the publication is with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with the administration of justice.”. Further, the Delhi High Court also relied on Ram Autar Shukla vs Arvind Shukla[2], where the Hon’ble Supreme court held that “This tendency to obstruct the due course of justice or tendency to undermine the dignity of the court needs to be severely dealt with to deter the persons having similar proclivity to resort to such acts or conduct.”.
Instead of a contempt proceeding initiated by the Delhi Hon’ble Court for the interference of justice and obstruction of judicial proceedings, the Hon’ble High Court could’ve referred the case for a trial under Chapter XXVI of CrPC by writing a complaint under Section 340 of CrPC either through the order or directing the Registrar, High Court to write a complaint to concerned Magistrate.
On a careful reading of the order, it is clear that the defendant fabricated the IBAP order dated 02.03.2016 with the intent that it will be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, and that such document, if used as evidence, may cause the Hon'ble Court in such proceeding to form an opinion on the evidence, resulting in an erroneous outcome of such proceeding, which was termed as an offense under Section 192 of IPC. Further fabricating such false evidence is punishable under section 193 of IPC with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to a fine. It is clear the Defendant in the case has committed perjury.
Procedure for Perjury under Chapter XXVI of CrPC
Section 340 of the CrPC deals with the procedure for initiating criminal proceedings against a person who has given false evidence before a court or has fabricated false evidence with the intention of using it in any stage of a judicial proceeding. The section requires the court to make a preliminary inquiry into the matter, and if it finds that a case of false evidence or fabrication of evidence is made out, then it can initiate criminal proceedings against the person concerned. The objective of this provision is to ensure that the judicial process is not subverted by the use of false or fabricated evidence.
Section 195 of CrPC provides for a bar of taking cognizance of the offenses inter alia mentioned under Sections 193–196 of IPC committed during proceedings in any Court except on the complaint in writing by the such court under section 340 of CrPC which means the court themselves are the complainant under 195(1)(b) of CrPC. Sections 343 to 348 of the CrPC deal with the procedure for the trial of a person who has been charged with an offense under Section 340.
There are a plethora of judgments emphasizing the scope, and importance of invoking Section 340 of CrPC on various occasions.
In the case of Tarun Keshrichand Shah vs. Kishore Engineering Company[3], where a chartered accountant made a false statement on oath with dishonest intentions. The Bombay High Court held that “giving of false evidence in the form of an affidavit or fabricating false evidence in the judicial proceeding needs to be dealt with an iron hand”. Another case that highlights the issue of perjury is Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana and Ors[4], wherein the petitioners were wrongfully detained by the police officers in Hissar, the Apex Court highlighted the issue of perjury and held that“for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice, it was expedient that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offenses committed”.
In Swaran Singh vs. State of Punjab[5], the Supreme Court noted that perjury has become a way of life in law courts and must be taken seriously. The Supreme court also suggested changes and advised the trial judges on how to deal with perjury “law needs amendment to Clause (b) of Section 340(3) of the CrPC in this respect as the High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint. To get rid of the evil of perjury, the court should resort to the use of the provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the CrPC.”
Mahila Vinod Kumari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[6] the Supreme court emphasizes the need for courts to recognize when a witness has intentionally given false or fabricated evidence, and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to ‘show cause’ why they should not be punished for the offense. The Apex court laid down a ratio that “The purpose of enacting Section 344, Cr.P.C. appears to be further arm the Court with a weapon to deal with more flagrant cases and not to take away the weapon already in its possession.” This case also implies that the court's opinion on perjury is crucial to delivering a just verdict, and courts must take a severe view of perjury to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.
Supreme Court and High Courts invoking Perjury under Section 340 of CrPC:
Section 195 provides that when a “court” is of the opinion that a false statement has been made by a person in relation to any proceeding before it, the court may refer the matter to the High Court. According to Section 195 (3), the court mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) includes the court of Civil, Revenue, or Criminal court including the tribunal. And thus it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to take action against a person who has made a false statement in a court proceeding.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High in hearing a company petition in its original jurisdiction titled Concast Bengal Industries Ltd. v. Topsia Estates Pvt. Ltd.[7] on finding that the respondent had made false statements in its pleadings has directed that the matter be referred to the criminal court for appropriate action under Section 340 CrPC. The High court emphasized that the action taken in this case would deter others who might be tempted to make false statements in their pleadings. Similarly, Hon’ble Delhi high court in a revision petition titled Tej Pal Gupta v. Rattan Singh[8], while invoking Section 340 CrPC to initiate proceedings has observed that such false statements not only undermine the sanctity of the judicial process but also waste the time and resources of the court. In re: Complaint in Testamentary Matter No. 1 of 2020 [9], the Bombay High Court directed the registrar to invoke Section 340 (3) CrPC and Section 195 of CrPc to initiate proceedings against the petitioner who falsely fabricated a court document. The court held that the petitioner's conduct was intended to make rights in favor of the petitioner and mark him as the heir with respect to the two-term deposits involved in the case. The courts have emphasized that perjury undermines the sanctity of the judicial process and that those found guilty must be punished to deter others from engaging in such conduct.
Perjury under Contempt of Courts Act 1971
The Contempts of Courts Act 1971 defines and restricts the powers of the courts more specifically to High Court & Supreme Court to punish contempt of court, to confer certain rights on the accused in such cases, and to provide procedures for dealing with contemptuous behavior. Perjury may also amount to contempt of court, which includes any act that interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct the administration of justice according to S.2 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. This is because false evidence undermines the authority and integrity of the court and obstructs the administration of justice. False evidence that is given with the intention of scandalizing the court, interfering with the due course of a judicial proceeding, or obstructing the administration of justice can fall under the purview of criminal contempt.
Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia[10] is an example where the Supreme Court held that a false statement deliberately made in an affidavit before the court stating that the property has already been sold amounted to contempt of court. The court affirmed “This practice of having a false statement incorporated in an affidavit filed before a court should always. bé deprecated and we do hereby record the same. The fact that the deponent has ‘in fact affirmed a false affidavit before this Court is rather serious in nature and, he thereby rendered himself guilty of contempt.” In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[11], where the petition was filed by M.C. Mehta regarding pollution caused by industries in the Union Territory of Delhi. The Supreme court found that the government had filed a false affidavit in the case, and therefore, was guilty of perjury and contempt of court. U.P Residents Employees Coop. House Building Society v. NOIDA[12], in a civil appeal in Supreme Court, dealt with the issue of contempt of court in the context of filing a false affidavit. The case arose from a dispute between a cooperative housing society and the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) regarding the acquisition of land. The Supreme Court found that the society had filed a false affidavit, which constituted contempt of court. In the writ petition in R. Karuppan, Advocate, Suo Motu Proceedings against In re[13], the respondent had filed false evidence in the High Court concerning the Chief Justice of India's age requirement. The Supreme court found it to be a gross criminal contempt of the court along with the offense of perjury. The Court avered “The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite the proof of the commission of the offense under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code”
Invoking Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 over Section 340 of CrPC for Perjury:
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) both provide for the punishment of offenses related to false evidence. While any courts can invoke Section 340 of the CrPC, only the High Courts and the Supreme Court have rights under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The scope of Section 340 is limited to making a preliminary inquiry into the matter, and if it appears that an offense has been committed, the court has to record the reasons and refer the matter to the appropriate magistrate to take cognizance and try the case as per the summary procedure defined under Section 344. While In contrast, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the court itself has the power to punish the person found guilty of contempt. Both Section 340 of the CrPC and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 play important roles in the administration of justice. Considering the process and time required for the trial, High Courts and Supreme Courts invoking the exclusive power vested in them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be more effective in bringing justice in a timely manner.
Research Assistance: Nandini Braj Singh [1] MANU/SC/0558/1995 [2] 1995 Supp (2) SCC 130 [3] MANU/MH/0206/2020 [4] MANU/SC/0707/1995 [5] MANU/SC/0320/2000 [6] MANU/SC/7817/2008 [7] 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 1575 [8] 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1585 [9] 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 279 [10] 2000 2 SCC 367 [11] 2003 5 SCC 376 [12] 2004 9 SCC 670 [13] 2001 5 SCC 289
Comments