Back
A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
K. K. Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
I'm sorry, but the query appears to be incomplete or malformed. It references a placeholder {
JUDGMENT :
Kauser Edappagath, J.
Can prosecution for perjury be maintained against a public servant under Section 340 r/w 195 of Cr. P.C unless prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is obtained? – this is the interesting question that falls for consideration in this criminal appeal filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C.
2. The appellant was the 10th accused in SC No.867/2012 on the file of the Court of Session, Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode (for short, “the trial court”). The appellant, along with fifty-one others, was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 465, 471, 118, 201, 212, 120B, 109 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The 2nd respondent was one of the investigating officers, and the 4th respondent was a police officer who was a member of the investigating team of the above case. The 3rd respondent was an attestor to Ext.P61 mahazar marked in the above case.
3. The prosecution allegation, in brief, in SC No.867/2012, is that pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by A8 to A14, with the assistance of A1, A3, A5, A7, A15 to A18, A20 to A25, and A27 to A30, at about 22.10 hours, o
The court's control over offences related to false evidence and public justice, and the necessity of a preliminary enquiry to determine the expediency of prosecution in the interest of justice.
The court ruled that initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C requires clear evidence of falsehood that impacts judicial proceedings, not mere inaccuracies.
Perjury proceedings cannot be initiated prematurely, and the completion of the trial in the underlying case is necessary before considering perjury allegations.
(1) Sanction for prosecution of public servant – The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage commission of a crime under supposed colour of public office – While deciding issue ....
Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. provides No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Prosecution for perjury in matrimonial disputes requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood and must be deemed expedient in the interest of justice.
Prosecution for perjury under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires prima facie evidence and expediency in the interest of justice, particularly when considering delays and motivations behind complaints.
Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service – It is restricted to only those ac....
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
