Back
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Pawan Kumar Gaud – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By way of this Criminal Misc. petition, the prayer has been made to quash the notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C., issued against the petitioners vide impugned judgment dated 31st March 2022, passed by Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota in Sessions Case No. 7/2020. Thereafter, separate misc. case no. 15/2022 has been registered.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, a written report was submitted by the petitioner no. 1 before the anti-corruption bureau, Kota, stating therein that he is having 6 tractors/trolleys and is indulged in supply of bricks, cement, etc. He further stated in the complaint that a false case has been registered against him by the SHO of Police Station Seeswali vide case no. 173/2018 and his tractors/trolleys are seized in this case. He further stated in the complaint that the concerned SHO is demanding Rs.8000/- (Eight Thousand Rupees) per tractor on monthly basis. He does not want to give the bribe and he wants to get him caught red handed. On this written report trap proceedings were conducted and petitioner nos.2 and 3 were associated as independent witnesses. Bribe amount was handed over to one Jamnalal, who was acting
The court upheld the trial court's authority under Section 344 Cr.P.C. to address perjury, requiring a clear opinion of intentional falsehood before action is taken.
The court emphasized the necessity of following established procedures in trials for perjury, ruling that failure to do so results in an unfair conviction.
The court ruled that mere inconsistencies in testimony do not constitute perjury under Section 344 Cr.P.C. unless there is evidence of wilful intent to give false evidence.
Action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood impacting justice, and mere repetition of allegations is insufficient for prosecution.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The mere acquittal of a defendant does not imply that the complainant made false statements, and reputational damage alone is insufficient to trigger inquiry under section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
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.
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
