Back
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Court of Sh. Vimal Sapra, Ld. Special Judge, Karnal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is impugning the judgment dated 22.12.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which his appeal against the judgment dated 05/06.04.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal whereby he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 years, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner inter alia contends that while passing the impugned judgments both the Courts below failed to appreciate that no formal charges had been framed by the trial Court which had caused grave injustice to the petitioner. Section 340 Cr.P.C. mandated a preliminary inquiry before initiation of proceedings under the said provision, however, the trial Court had fallen into error by directly proceeding with the trial on a complaint filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment passed in ' Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya and others , 2013(2) SCC (Cri) 197 '. Learned counsel has, thus, argued that in the wake of the aforesaid procedural illegality, the entire trial stood vitiated and the conviction of the petitioner deserved to be set
A preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before making a complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
The proposed accused do not have a right to be heard at the stage of inquiry under section 340(1) of the CrPC.
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.
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 intentional change of version by a witness to weaken the prosecution case warrants prosecution under Section 195 of CrPC, and a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in such cases.
At the stage of framing the charge, the court should only consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused based on the material on record, and should not weigh the ev....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. to be made out, the complaint must falsely charge a person with having committed an offence, with the....
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
