K.T.M.S. Mohd. And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 April, 1992 SC

You are currently viewing K.T.M.S. Mohd. And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 April, 1992 SC

In this context, reference may be made to Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under

Chapter X X VI under the heading “Provisions as to certain offences affecting the administration of

justice”. This section confers an inherent power on a Court to make a complaint in respect of an

offence 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, if that Court is of opinion

that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence referred

to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 and authorises such Court to hold preliminary

enquiry as it thinks necessary and then make a complaint thereof in writing after recording a finding

to that effect as comtemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 340. The words “in or in relation to a

proceeding in that Court” show that the Court which can take action under this section is only the

Court operating within the definition of Section 195 (3) before which or in relation to whose

proceeding the offence has been committed. There is a word of caution inbuilt in that provision itself

that the action to be taken should be expedient in the interest of justice. Therefore, it is incumbent

that the power given by this Section 340 of the Code should be used with utmost care and after due

consideration. The scope of Section 340 (1) which corresponds to Section 476(1) of the old Code was

examined by this Court in K. Kanunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier and Another, [1978] 1 SCC 18

and in that decision, it has observed:

“At an enquiry held by the Court under Section 340 (1), Cr.P.C., irrespective of the result of the main

case, the only question is whether a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, may have a

reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offence and whether it is also expedient in the

interest of justice to take such action.

…………………………………………. ………………..The two pre-conditions are that the materials produced

before the High Court make out a prima facie case for a complaint and secondly that it is expedient

in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution under Section 193 IPC.”

The above provisions of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal procedure are alluded only for the

purpose of showing that necessary care and caution are to be taken before initiating a criminal

proceeding for perjury against the deponent of contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding.

K.T.M.S. Mohd. And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 April, 1992

Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1059883/ 17

The mere fact that a deponent has made contradictory statements at two different stages in a

judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution for perjury under Section

193 IPC but it must be established that the deponent has intentionally given a false statement in any

stage of the `judicial proceeding’ or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any

stage of the judicial proceeding. Further, such a prosecution for perjury should be taken only if it is

expedient in the interest of justice.

Leave a Reply