Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2012 (4) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2012 (4) TMI 720 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the application of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the legality of prosecution under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C.

Application of Section 239 of Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. contending that the FIR against him was not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application, which was challenged in a criminal revision before the High Court and subsequently dismissed. The petitioner argued that the prosecution was illegal and should be quashed as the offence was committed in court, requiring a complaint lodged by the court, not the convict. However, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition, noting that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, including not disclosing a previous unsuccessful attempt to quash the chargesheet. The Court emphasized the importance of disclosing relevant facts and concluded that the petitioner's suppression of material facts warranted the dismissal of the petition.

Legality of Prosecution under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C.:
The chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 177, 181, 182, and 195 IPC. The petitioner argued that the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. were not applicable as the offences were committed outside the court. The Court explained that while Sections 177 and 182 dealt with cases outside the court, fabrication of false evidence punishable under Section 195 IPC could occur outside the court but still be used in court. The Court referenced previous judgments to support this interpretation. The petitioner's counsel relied heavily on a specific judgment, but the Court noted that a larger Bench judgment had not been brought to its attention. Ultimately, the Court found the petitioner guilty of suppressing material facts and abusing the court process by filing successive petitions, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

This judgment addresses the application of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving the legality of prosecution under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of disclosing all relevant facts and highlighted that fabrication of false evidence punishable under Section 195 IPC could occur outside the court but still be used in court. The Court found the petitioner guilty of suppressing material facts and abusing the court process, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates