http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 26

PETITIONER:

DR. BALIRAM WAMAN HIRAY

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUSTICE B. LENTIN AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/09/1988

BENCH:

SEN, A.P. (J)

BENCH:

SEN, A.P. (J)

SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:

1988 AIR 2267 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 942

1988 SCC (4) 419 JT 1988 (4) 265

1988 SCALE (2)688

ACT:

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952: Section 3--Commission

of Inquiry--Constituted under Act--Whether ’Court’ for

purposes of Section l95(1)(b) Cr. P.C. 1973.

%

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--Section 195(1)(b)--

Commission of Inquiry’ constituted under Commission of

Inquiry Act, 1952--Whether a ’Court’.

Words and Phrases: ’Court’--Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:

On February 21, 1986 the State Government of Maharashtra

appointed Shri Justice B. Lentin as a one-man Commission of

Inquiry to probe into the death of 14 patients in the

government run J.J.B. Hospital between 22.1.1986 and

7.2.1986 after they were administered contaminated glycerol,

and to fix responsibility. The inquiry revealed the

existence of a corrupt and venal nexus between the drug

firms, the delinquent Food & Drugs Administration and

hospital staff on the one hand, and the appellant, some

other persons and certain Government officials on the other.

The Commission’s report was an indictment of the State’s

public health system.

The Commission having found the evidence given by the

appellant self-contradictory, issued a show-cause notice to

him as to why he should not be prosecuted for the offence of

giving false evidence on oath under s. 193 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 read with s. 340 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. After considering the appellant’s

objections, the Commission directed filing of a complaint

under ss. 193 and 228 of I.P.C. The appellant filed a

petition in the High Court assailing the legality and

propriety of the order of the Commission directing filing of

the complaint, and the same was dismissed by the High Court.

Before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the

appellant that (1) the Commission could not be deemed to be

a Court for the purposes of s. 195(1)(b) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure unless declared by the Commission of

Inquiries Act itself, as stipulated in sub-s. (3) of s. 195,

PG NO 942

PG NO 943

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 26

which provides that in cl. (b) of sub-s. (1), the term

’Court’ means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and

includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central,

Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a

Court for the purposes of this Section; (2) the Commission

of Inquiry appointed by the State Government was merely a

fact-finding body appointed by the Government for the

’information of its mind’, and the mere fact that the

procedure adopted was of a legal character and it had the

power to administer an oath would not impart to it the

status of the Court and therefore was not a ’Court’ for the

purposes of s. 195(1)(b) of the Code; (3) the question was

not whether the appellant could be prosecuted for perjury

for giving false evidence which was an offence punishable

under section 195(1)(b), but whether the Commission was a

’Court’ for the purposes of s. 195(1)(b); (4) that sub-s.

to put an end to the controversy, and this was nothing but

’legislative declaration of the law’ contrary to the law

declared by this Court in Lalj Haridas case, and a number of

statutes contain such a provision in accordance with the

existing legislative practice.

The Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State

contended that (1) the inclusive part of the definition of

’Court’ in s. 195(3) of the C