Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st April, 1959.
S. JAFER IMAM AND J.L. KAPUR, JJ.
Ranjit Singh, Appellant
Versus
The State of Pepsu (now Punjab), Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Pritam Singh Safeer, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (Mr. T. M. Sen, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
PERJURY - S. 193, INDIAN PENAL CODE - AFFIDAVIT FILED IN HIGH COURT - OATH OR AFFIRMATION - S. 14, OATHS ACT - FALSE STATEMENT - S. 191, INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTERPRETATION - CONVICTION - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Sub-Inspector of Police, filed an affidavit in the High Court of PEPSU in response to a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus, stating that he had never taken Surjit Singh into custody and that he was not in his custody. The affidavit was affirmed as true to the best of his knowledge and belief. However, it was later discovered that the appellant had indeed taken Surjit Singh into custody and had surreptitiously removed him to various police stations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellant was legally bound to file an affidavit and that he had made a false statement in the affidavit, which constituted an offence under S. 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court also held that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate was not erroneous and that the appellant had been rightly convicted.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was legally bound to file an affidavit in response to the petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus. 2. Whether the appellant had made a false statement in the affidavit. 3. Whether the procedure adopted by the Magistrate was erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellant was legally bound to file an affidavit in response to the petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus because he was required to justify the detention of Surjit Singh and to disclose facts to show that the custody was not improper. 2. The Court held that the appellant had made a false statement in the affidavit because he had stated that he had never taken Surjit Singh into custody and that he was not in his custody, when in fact he had taken Surjit Singh into custody and had surreptitiously removed him to various police stations. 3. The Court held that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate was not erroneous because under S. 200 proviso (aa) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary for a Magistrate when a complaint is made by a Court to examine the complainant and neither S. 200 nor S. 202 requires a preliminary enquiry before the Magistrate can assume jurisdiction to issue process against the person complained against.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant.
Judgment
J. L. KAPUR J.: This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Pepsu passed in revision. The appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police who at the relevant time was the Station House Officer in-charge Shehna police station in the erstwhile PEPSU State. He was convicted under S. 193, Indian Penal Code, by a First Class Magistrate and his appeal to the Sessions Judgc, Patiala, was dismissed except as to sentence. He took a revision to the PEPSU High Court but that was also dismissed.
2. This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances: One Surjit Singh s/o Risaldar Waryam Singh was arrested on September 25, 1953, at Barnala in PEPSU State by the Police Inspector Jaswant Singh, He was kept in the lock-up at Barnala and on the following day his custody was handed over to the appellant and he was taken to Shehna and was kept in custody-it is not clear under what section-in the police station lock-up at Shehna. Surjit Singh was there kept in custody from September 25, 1958, till October 10, 1953, when at about 10 p.m., he was surreptitiously removed to Police Station Dialpur and then to Police Post Hamirgarh and from there was taken to Police Station Baga Purana in Ferozepur District, of the then Punjab. An application under S. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under Art. 226 of the Constitution was made for a writ of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus in the High Court of PEPSU. In that petition it was alleged that Surjit Singh was being kept in unlawful custody without any charge being made and without obtaining a remand by a Magistrate. In reply to this, an affidavit dated October 13,1953, was filed by the appellant in which he stated that Surjit Singh had association with notorious dacoits; that he, the appellant, had never taken him into custody at any time; that the said Surjit Singh was absconding and had not been arrested in spite of the best efforts of the police; that at the time of the making of the affidavit he was not in the appellant s custody and that it was incorrect that Inspector Jaswant Singh had ever entrusted Surjit Singh to his (appellant s) custody. He also stated that no petition had been brought to him nor had he received any telegram in connection with the custody of Surjit Singh. This affidavit was affirmed as follows:
"I solemnly affirm that the facts stated from para. No. 1 to 7 are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing which is relevant to this case has been kept back from this Hon ble Court."
As both the parties admitted before the High Court that Surjit Singh was not in the custody of the appellant the petition was dismissed. On November 9, 1953, the brother of Surjit Singh made an application under S. 476, Criminal Procedure Code, for the prosecution of Inspector Jaswant Singh and the appellant for perjury under S. 193, Indian Penal Code, in that they had filed false affidavits. This matter was heard by another learned Judge of that Court who ordered the prosecution of the appellant and directed the Registrar of the High Court to file a complaint which was filed.
3. The complaint was taken cognisance of by the First Class Magistrate at Patiala who convicted the appellant and sentenced him to nine months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, The appellant took an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Patiala, who confirmed the order of conviction but reduced the sentence to one of three months simple imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 50 and in default one month s simple imprisonment. A revision against this order was dismissed in limine by the Chief Justice although he gave reasons for dismissing it. The appellant then obtained special leave from this Court.
4. On behalf of the appellant the first contention raised was that the appellant was not bound to file an affidavit and therefore he could not be convicted under S. 193, Indian Penal Code, because his case did not fall under S. 191, India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
