Very important point
Common Law offence of perjury is contained in Section 191 and Chapter XI of IPC 1860. The respondent has committed this offence in Supreme Court proceeding prima facie in an affidavit and writ petition wrongly making a statement that the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand has not been determined by the President of India in terms of Article 217 of the Constitution for which a complaint would be filed before a Competent Magistrate at Delhi and all necessary steps would be taken for its prosecution.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 191 and 193 and Ch. XI—Common law offence of perjury—Duty of Court to take recourse to it—Explained.
       Held : Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences committed against the society. The courts are further expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying upon the false evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is depended upon the statement of facts. If the result of the proceedings are to be respected, these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in accordance with the truth. The purity of proceedings of the court cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence inspired by extraneous considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy. At common law courts took action against a person who was shown to have made a statement, material in the proceedings, which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true. The offence committed by him is known as perjury. (Paras 13 and 14)
       In India, law relating to the offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, incorporated to deal with the offences relating to giving false evidence against public justice. The offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial system. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, concededly let lose by vested interest and professional litigants. 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 proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time. The present case is no exception to the general practice being followed by many of the litigants in the country. (Para 15)
       (ii) Constitution of India—Articles 32 and 217—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 193 r/w 191—Respondent fully knowing that the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand had been determined by President of India under Article 217 on 16.5.1991 as he was present in contempt proceeding relating to it in Supreme Court still filed writ petition supported by affidavit on facts known to him to be false for being used in judicial proceeding—Show cause issued—Whether guilty of perjury prima facie? (Yes)—Result—Direction given to file a complaint under Section 193 IPC against respondent before Magistrate of a Competent Jurisdiction at Delhi and prosecute it—Order accordingly.
       Held : Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the record of proceedings in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 77 of 2001, we are prima facie satisfied that the respondent herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition (for the purposes of being used in the judicial proceedings, i.e. writ petition), has wrongly made a statement that the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand has not been determined by the President of India in terms of Article 217 of the constitution. We are satisfied that such a statement supported by an affidavit of the respondent was known to him to be false which he believed to be false and/or at least did not believe to be true. It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC. The respondent herein, being legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC. With the object of eradicating the evil of perjury, we empower the Registrar General of this Court to depute an officer of the rank of Deputy Registrar or above of the Court to file a complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent herein, before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi. Such officer is directed to file such complaint and take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint. (Paras 16 and 17)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Courts have the power to take action against persons making false statements known to be false in judicial proceedings (!) . - Perjury is defined under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code (!) . - The Court is duty-bound to act against perjury to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings (!) (!) . - A complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code can be filed by a Deputy Registrar or above at Delhi (!) . - False statements in affidavits are punishable as perjury under Section 193 IPC (!) . - Knowledge of a false statement and belief in its falsity or lack of belief in its truth constitutes perjury (!) . - The Court must act quickly and impartially to prevent pollution of the judicial system (!) . - Effective stern action is necessary to prevent misuse of the judicial process (!) . - The offence of perjury is recognized to uphold the truth and integrity of judicial processes (!) (!) . - The present case exemplifies the general practice of perjury by litigants in the country (!) .

What constitutes the common law offence of perjury?

What are the grounds for filing a complaint for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code?

What is the duty of the Court in dealing with perjury cases?

Judgment

Sethi, J.—Proclaiming to be its President, the respondent Sh. R. Karuppan filed a Writ Petition in the name of Madras High Court Advocates Association praying for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto against the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. He also prayed this Court to determine the age of the first respondent in the writ petition as 1.11.1934 and further that the first respondent had attained the age of superannuation on 31st October, 1999 and had ceased to hold the office since then. In support of the averments made in the writ petition Shri R. Karuppan (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) also filed an affidavit.

2. Before the matter was taken up for admission, the Registry of this Court received a petition signed by a number of advocates claiming to be the members of the said Association and alleging that the Association had not authorised the respondent to file any writ petition in the name of the Association. Ignoring the disputes stated to be existing amongst the members of the Advocates Association, we proceeded to consider the writ petition on the assumption that the petition was either filed on behalf of the Association or by the respondent on his own in his individual capacity as well, particularly when the prayer made was for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. In the said petition, the respondent had raised the question of the alleged disputed age of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

3. The writ petition was dismissed in limine observing :

“Now Mr. Karuppan made averments in the present writ petition that `the petitioner submits that the dispute which has arisen as early as in 1991, under termined by the President and the operation of Article 217 is still operative and within the jurisdiction of the President.’ He further averred that `the petitioner submits that the conduct of the President of India, ever since the controversy arose till date only proves that the dispute has never been determined by him or his predecessor’. He further averred that the press note released by the Government of India to the Press Information Bureau on 23rd October, 2000, reached the notice of the petitioner only after 23.11.2000. In the context of this statement he concealed the fact that copy of the said press note was included in the files of the contempt proceedings initiated against S.K. Sundaram as early as 7.11.2000. Mr. Karuppan admitted before us that he himself appeared in this Court as Advocate for S.K. Sundaram on 20.11.2000.”

4. Notice was issued to the respondent requiring him to show cause why prosecution proceedings shall not be initiated against him for offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. During the pendency of these proceeding 600 and odd persons, claiming to be the members of the Advocates Association submitted in writing that the Association had not passed any Resolution regarding the age of the CJI and that Mr. Karuppan was not authorised to file any case representing the Association. As the notice was issued against the respondent in his individual capacity, we granted him time to file reply to the notice, if he so desired. In reply, the respondent has reiterated the submissions made earlier in the writ petition filed by him. It is submitted that he believed bona fide that the President of India had not determined the age of the Chief Justice of India and even if ay determination has been made under Article 217 of the Constitution, the same is not conclusive for all times. It is contended that the respondent came to know of the Press Information Bureau release, informing that the age of the Chief Justice of India stood determined by the President of India as early as on 16.5.1991 only in December, 2000. The respondent has submitted that he is not guilty of offence of perjury.

6. We have heard the respondent who has appeared in person and examined the whole record.

7. Proved or admitted facts of the case are that one S.K. Sundaram, Advocate sent a telegraphic communication to D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document