False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Maharashtra State Elect. Distrn. Co. L vs Datar Switchgear Ltd.

   Supreme Court of India 08 Oct 2010 Binding (SC) - Landmark Precedent Reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 199, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In the absence of a specific statutory provision for vicarious liability, a person who is otherwise not personally involved in the commission of an offence cannot be held criminally liable merely by reason of his official position or status as a company officer. To prosecute an individual officer of a company for offences under Sections 192 and 199 IPC, the complainant must make specific averments demonstrating the personal role, participation, and knowledge of that individual in the fabrication of false evidence. Section 34 IPC (common intention) requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or prior concert between the accused, and cannot be used to impose vicarious liability on a person who has not participated in the commission of the offence. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations do not disclose a prima facie case against a particular accused.

   On this section: False statement in declaration - requires making false statement in declaration which court or public servant is bound to receive as evidence, knowing it to be false, touching material point. Court applied this to commissioning reports submitted in arbitration proceedings.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Asoke Basak vs State of Maharashtra

   Supreme Court of India 08 Oct 2010 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 199, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In the absence of specific statutory provision incorporating vicarious liability, a person who is not directly involved in the commission of an offence cannot be held liable merely by reason of his official position or corporate role. To prosecute corporate officials for criminal offences, the complainant must make specific averments demonstrating the personal role, participation, and knowledge of each accused. For Section 34 IPC to apply, there must be evidence of a pre-arranged plan and actual participation in the commission of the offence, not merely a position of authority. A chairman or director of a company cannot be presumed to be responsible for all acts committed by or on behalf of the company without specific evidence of his involvement, direction, or knowledge.

   On this section: False statement in declaration - requires making false statement in declaration which court or public servant is bound to receive as evidence, knowing or believing it to be false, touching material point

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. N. K. Prasada vs Govt. of India

   Supreme Court of India 12 Apr 2004 Binding (SC)

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 199, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When a party with proper notice of proceedings chooses not to appear and participate in proceedings, including not cross-examining witnesses, they cannot later claim violation of principles of natural justice. The burden lies on the party to demonstrate both absence of proper notice and serious prejudice arising therefrom. Further, the Supreme Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 when the appellant has abused the process of court or engaged in fraud. The PIL mechanism, while intended for public interest, cannot be allowed to serve as a destructive weapon against legitimate government orders or decisions, and courts must exercise self-restraint in recognizing and preventing such abuse.

   On this section: Furnishing false information to public servant with intent to cause wrongful conviction

   Read the full order on eCourts India

4. Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Antar Singh Darbar

   Supreme Court of India 12 Jan 2017 Binding (SC) Marked not reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 199, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. It must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after such position has emerged, the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice as referred in Section 340(1) of the CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.

   On this section: Offences of giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence. Court clarified that mere contradictory statements are insufficient; intentional falsity must be demonstrated.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

5. Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Antar Singh Darbar

   Supreme Court of India 12 Jan 2017 Binding (SC) Marked not reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 199, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Mere allegations of contradictory statements, factual errors in description of parties, or absence from notary signing procedures do not constitute sufficient grounds for initiating a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 CrPC into alleged false evidence and perjury. A court must form a definite opinion that the inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice, taking into account the overall factual matrix, the probable consequences of prosecution, and the requirement that the defendant must have intentionally given a false statement or deliberately fabricated evidence. The absence of such satisfaction renders the direction to initiate inquiry invalid and requires remand for fresh consideration.

   On this section: Sections 199-200 IPC addresses false evidence and fabrication in judicial proceedings. Court established that intentional false statement is essential element - contradictory statements alone insufficient for prosecution under these sections

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.