BABAN SINGH AND ANR. versus JAGDISH SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 08-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BABAN SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
JAGDISH SINGH & ORS. 
February 8, 1966 
[K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT JJ.j 
Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 191, 192 and 199-F/llng affidavit con-
taining false statements before High Court-Offence under which section 
commuted. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, ss. 476 and 419-A(6)-0fiences by wit-
nesses under ss. 191 and 192 Penal Code-S. 479..A app/le, and octkin 
A 
B 
wnder s. 476 c1111110t be taken. 
C 
The appellants made affidavits in the High Court dcnyinii receipt of 
money '1}' way of compromise in a first appeal pending before 
that 
Court. The High Coun ordered the Registrar to hold an enquiry. The 
Resistrar after recording the evidence of the parties reported that the 
appellants' denial of receipt of money was false. Thereafter an application 
was made to the High Court under s. 476 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure which was kept pending and taken up after the appeal was decided. 
D 
Tho Hiab Coun held that tho olfence committed by tho appellan:a -
ou 
under 8. 199 Indian Penal Code and ordered the Registrar to file a com-
plaint. 
The 
appellanta 
came 
to 
this 
Coun 
under 
1. 4768. 
The questions 
for consideration were; 
(I) 
whether 
the otrence 
committed by the appellants fell under s. 191 and 192 of the Penal Code 
or under 8. 199, and (2) whether proceedings under s. 479-A could be 
llleo against the appellants, for if they could be, then action ouiibt to 
have been taken under that section and s. 476 could not be invoked. 
E 
HELD : (i) When the appellants made declarations in their affidavits 
which were tendered in tho High Coun to ho taken into consideration ~ 
intended the statements to appear in evidence, and so appearing, to came 
tho coun to ontenain an erroneous opinion rqarding the compromile. 
Their offence came within the words of ss. 191/192 rather than a. 199 of 
Ille Indian Penal Code. (556 CJ 
(ii) In respost of offences under ss. 191 and 192 of tho Indian Penal 
Code when committed by a witness action under s. 479-A alone can be 
taken and action under s. 476 is ruled out because of sub.,., (6) 
of 
1. 479-A. [SS6 E..GJ 
CRIMINAL APPELi.All! JUR1smcnoN : Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 3, 1963 
of the Patna High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 366of1956. 
Naunit Lal, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hldayatullah, J.-This is an appeal under s. 476-B of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure by one Baban Singh and his wife Dharichhan 
Kuer against a judgment and order of the High Court at Patna 
G 
H 
h. 
~" 
• 
y' 
• 
A 
B 
c 
• 
D 
... 
E 
F 
G 
' 
BABAN v. JAGDISH (Hldayatullah, !.) 
553 
ordering the Registrar to file a complaint against them under s. 199 
of the Indian Penal Code for making false affidavits. The res-
pondents are persons who had moved the High Court under s. 476 
of the Code for the prosecution of the appellants in the following 
circumstances. 
Jagdish Singh and Parmhans were appellants in F. A. 301 of 
1952 in the High Court at Patna. Mst. Dharichhan Kuer was 
respondent No. 13 in that appeal. During the pendency of the 
appeal a compromise was said to have been arrived at between 
Dharichhan Kuer on the one hand and Jagdish Singh and Parmhans 
on the other. Dharichhan Kuer and Jagdish Singh swore an affi-
davit on June 22, 1953 in support of the petition for compromise 
which was filed in the High Court. Baban Singh's brother identi-
fied Dharichhan Kuer before the Oath Commissioner and Rs. 4,000 
were paid to Dharichhan Kuer under the terms of the com-
promise in the Commissioner's presence. Dharichhan Kuer also 
passed a receipt and her thumb impression was identified by Baban 
Singh's brother. The petition of compromise was filed in court 
on July 13, 1953. The same day Baban Singh swore an affidavit 
(Ex. B) denying the compromise or that his wife had received 
Rs. 4,000. 
This affidavit was filed in the High Court on July 31, 
1953. On September 9, 1953 Dharichhan Kuer also filed an affi-
davit (Ex. A) in support of her husband. 
As the compromise was in dispute the High Court ordered the 
Registrar to hold an enquiry. Nine witnesses were examined on 
behalf of Jagdish Singh and Parmhans including the Oath Commis-
sioner. Dharichhan Kuer and her husband Baban Singh gave 
evidence on their own behalf. The Registrar reported on July 14, 
1954 that the compromise was genuine and that Dharichhan Kuer 
ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.