LexASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 12 S.C.R. 607
ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1842 of 2013)
NOVEMBER 22, 2013
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s.340 rlw s.195(1)(b)
A
B
- Perjury in judicial proceedings - Allegations of -
Application filed by appellant to proceed against respondent C
no.5 u/s.340 r/w s.195(1)(b) - Dismissed by the High Court-
Justification - Held: Justified - In order to initiate prosecution
for perjury, the court must prima facie reach a conclusion after
holding preliminary inquiry that there was a deliberate and
conscious effort to misguide the court and interfere in the
D
administration of justice - More so, it has to be seen whether
such a prosecution is necessary in the interest of justice -
Prosecution for perjury is required only where perjury appears
to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is
reasonable, probable or likely - On facts, a mere impression
E
or perception of the appellant would not make the deposition
on affidavit by respondent no.5 to be false as being a
deliberate and conscious act - There was no deliberate
perjury to misguide the court while making such statement or
filing the affidavit.
F
The appellant filed Writ Petition before the High Court
seeking transfer of investigation from respondent nos. 3,
4 and 5 to any other senior officer of Central Bureau of
Investigation ('CBI'). as the said respondents had been
abusing their investigating powers and adopted unfair G
and improper means. On submission of the counsel for
respondent No. 5 that the investigation report had been
finalised and no further investigation was required to be
done, the Court directed the competent authority of the
607
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 12 S.C.R.
A CBI to file an affidavit in this regard. An affidavit was filed
by respondent No. 5 on 5-4-2002, wherein it was stated
that the investigation was complete and that no further·
investigation was required to be done and a final report
was already submitted by him on 11-1-2002 to the
B Superintendent of Police.
However, coming to know that certain witnesses had
been examined by the CBI subsequent thereto, the
appellant preferred an application to proceed against
respondent no.5 under Section 340 read with Section
C 195(1)(b) of CrPC. The application was dismissed by the
High Court, and therefore the instant appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
o
HELD: 1. In order to initiate prosecution for perjury,
the court must prima facie reach a conclusion after
holding preliminary inquiry that there has been a
deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the court and
interfere in the administration of justice. More so, it has
E to be seen whether such a prosecution is necessary in
the interest of justice. [Para 1 O] [615-A-B]
Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC
421: 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 465; Karunakaran v. T. V. Eachara
Warrier & Anr. AIR 1979 SC 290; K. T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v.
F Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1831: 1992 (2) SCR 879; Chajoo
Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr. AIR 1971 SC 1367: 1971 (0)
Suppl. SCR 172; Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi
Marwah & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 2119: 2005 (2) SCR 708 and
R.S. Sujatha v. State of Kamataka & Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 689:
G 2010 (14) SCR 227 - relied on.
2.1. In the instant case, the affidavit filed by
respondent no. 5 revealed that the respondent no. 5 had
submitted the final report (Part-I) in the aforesaid case on
H 11.1.2002to the SP. It is also not in dispute as can be seen
ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA
609
from the affidavit dated 5.4.2002, that the report submitted A
by the 10 goes to the superior officers for scrutiny and
comments. The High Court had passed a consent order
dated 19.4.2002 wherein certain directions had been
issued to the Director, CBI to exa~ine the case. The
Director, CBI after examining the record of the case, vide B
order dated 23.4.2002, asked the 10 to tighten the loose
ends of the case. The said order has not been challenged
till date. The High Court while dealing with the case has
also, after examining the original records as well as the
file and particularly the confidential notings therein, came c
to the conclusion that in view of the directions issued by
the superior authority, some other witnesses were
examined "to tighten the loose ends of the case" and
there was no attempt on the part of the investigating
agency to misExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.