Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 422

N. V. RAMANA, A. S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY
N. S. Nandiesha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Kavitha Mahesh – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Parties :Ms. Kavita, Mr. Jayant Mohan, Mr. S.N. Bhat, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court held that mere reference to inconsistent statements is not enough; must be a definite finding of irreconcilable or intentional falsehood and it must be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate inquiry. (!) (!) (!) - The election winner’s success should not be lightly interfered with; prosecution or perjury action requires careful consideration of overall facts and consequences. (!) (!) - The direction to file a criminal complaint under Section 193 IPC against a Returning Officer was set aside; perjury proceedings were not sustained where no deliberate falsehood was proven. (!) (!)

Question 1?

What is the standard for initiating perjury/prosecution under IPC Section 193 and related provisions in election petitions?

Question 2?

What constitutes sufficient evidence to conclude intentional falsehood or perjury by a witness in election-related proceedings?

Question 3?

When should a court exercise discretion to initiate inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. or lodge a complaint for perjury in the context of election petitions?

JUDGMENT :

A.S. BOPANNA, J.

1. The appellants in both these appeals are assailing the order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the learned 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 the Representation of People Act 1951. Further, in the course of the said order the learned Judge has directed the 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. The said direction is issued since according to the learned Judge, the appellant in the said appeal who was the Returning Officer for the said election; on being examined as PW-3 in the Election Petition had given false evidence before the Court. In the above circumstance, the appellant in C.A. No. 4821/2012 (Mr. Nandiesha Reddy) has assailed the order in its entirety while

Click Here to Read the rest of this document