2011 (11) TMI 634 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Prosecution under Sections 174 and 193 of IPC, Non-appearance in response to summons, False declarations and fabricated evidence.

The judgment pertains to a petition challenging the prosecution initiated against the applicant by the Central Excise Department under Sections 174 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that the offence under Section 174 of IPC was not established as he eventually appeared in response to the fourth summon after missing the first three. However, the court disagreed, stating that each non-appearance constituted a separate offence, leading to three charges under Section 174. The applicant's defense regarding the fourth summon was noted, but it was deemed inappropriate to examine it at that stage.

Regarding the defense's submission that the two letters submitted by the applicant were not considered, the court found no mention of these letters in the criminal complaint. The applicant's request to file an affidavit later was deemed an attempt to delay proceedings due to poor initial drafting. The court highlighted that granting such liberty would encourage careless drafting followed by unnecessary delays.

The defense further contended that the prosecution under Section 193 was impermissible, citing that the declaration made was not false and questioning the maintainability of the complaint under Section 340 of Cr. P.C. The court clarified that Section 340 applies after fabricated evidence is used in judicial proceedings, while Section 193 covers cases where fabricated evidence is intended for judicial proceedings but not yet used. The complaint in question indicated false declarations made by the applicant for use in adjudication, constituting a judicial proceeding under Section 193. The court emphasized that the offense under Section 193 was established based on the intention to use fabricated evidence in judicial proceedings, warranting trial without implying guilt.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the applicant was liable to be tried for the charges under Sections 174 and 193 of IPC. The judgment underscored that the applicant's guilt was not determined but emphasized the need for trial based on the allegations presented.