2021 Supreme(SC) 422

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
N.S. Nandiesha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Kavitha Mahesh – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4821, 6171 of 2012
Decided On : 03-08-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Perjury – Mere reference to inconsistent statements alone is not sufficient to take action unless a definite finding is given that they are irreconcilable. Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in interest of justice.
(2) Success of a candidate who has won at election should not be lightly interfered with.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 193 – Punishment for Perjury – Even in a case where Court comes to conclusion on aspect of intentional false evidence, still Court has to form an opinion whether it is expedient in interest of justice to initiate inquiry into offences of false evidence, having regard to overall factual matrix as well as probable consequences of such prosecution – Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in interest of justice and is appropriate in facts of the case. (Para 17)

(B) Representation of People Act 1951 – Section 100 (1) (c) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 193 – Invalidation of election – Allegation of Perjury – Mere reference to inconsistent statements alone is not sufficient to take action unless a definite finding is given that they are irreconcilable; one is opposed to other so as to make one of them deliberately false – Judge has accepted version put forth by election petitioner – That by itself does not indicate that appellant had uttered falsehood intentionally and deliberately before court so as to initiate action under Section 193 of Indian Penal Code – It is not a case where appellant was a party-respondent to election petition where his written version was available – On other hand, he was examined as a witness by election petitioner – Judge also had not put appellant on notice on allegation of committing perjury and provided him an opportunity nor has Judge come to conclusion that one of versions is deliberate or intentional falsehood and that action is necessary to be taken against him – Conclusion reached that he is to be prosecuted, without findings being recorded regarding deliberate or intentional falsehood cannot be sustained – Direction issued to Registrar General of High Court to initiate proceedings by lodging a criminal complaint also cannot be sustained in facts and circumstances arising in this case – There is no intentional falsehood uttered – Assembly Constituency concerned is a vast constituency which had nearly four lakh voters on electoral rolls – Election petitioner had not placed material to indicate that she had contested in any earlier election or had wide support base in election concerned and it is in that view she had been shut out from contest – There is no allegation that Returning Officer was acting at instance or behest of any other candidate who was feeling threatened by participation of election petitioner in election process – Success of a candidate who has won at election should not be lightly interfered with – Direction contained in impugned order to Registrar General of High Court to register complaint against appellant, the then Returning Officer before competent court for proceeding in accordance with law for the purpose of provisions of Section 193 of Indian Penal Code, set aside. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 16, 18 and 19)

Facts of the case:

Appellants in both these appeals are assailing order dated 01.06.2012 passed by Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Election Petition No. 7/2008. By the said order, the election of the appellant in C.A. No. 4821/2012 (Mr. Nandiesha Reddy) from 151 K.R. Pura Legislative Assembly constituency in Bangalore Urban District is held to be void, in terms of Section 100 (1) (c) of Representation of People Act 1951. Further, in the course of the said order the learned Judge has directed Registrar General of the High Court to register a complaint against the appellant in C.A. No.6171/2012 (Mr. Ashok Mensinkai) before the Competent Court for proceeding in accordance with law for the purpose of provisions of Section 193 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appellant had stated that nomination papers had not been presented to him before closing hours and had sought to justify his action. He had also stated about procedure followed in all cases and presence of observers in his office. On other hand, election petitioner had contended that she had made an attempt to submit the nomination paper which was not received by appellant who was Returning Officer. When he had received 18 nomination papers on that day there was no particular reason to refuse election petitioner’s nomination, nor has motive been suggested or established

Findings of Court:

Election petitioner had not placed material to indicate that she had contested in any earlier election or had wide support base in the election concerned and it is in that view she had been shut out from the contest. Further there is no allegation that the Returning Officer was acting at instance or behest of any other candidate who was feeling threatened by the participation of the election petitioner in the election process.

Result : Civil Appeal No. 4821/2012 disposed of as infructuous and Civil Appeal No. 6171/2012 allowed.