DR. BALIRAM WAMAN HIRAY versus JUSTICE B. LENTIN AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 942 · Decided: 12-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Case Allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
G 
DR. BALIRAM WAMAN HIRAY 
v. 
JUSTICE B. LENTIN AND OTHERS 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Commission 
of Inquiry Act, 1952: Section 3-Commission of 
Inquiry-Constituted under Act-Whether 'Court' for purposes of Sec-
tion 195(1)(b) Cr. P.C. 1973. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 195(1)(b)-Commis-
sion of Inquiry' constituted under Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952-
Whether a 'Court'. 
Words and Phrases: 'Court'-Meaningof. 
D 
On February 21, 1986 the State Government of Maharashtra 
appointed Shri Justice B. Lentin as a one-man Commission of Inquiry 
to probe into the death of 14 patients in the government run J.J.B. 
Hospital between 22.1.1986 and 7 .2.1986 after they were administered 
contaminated glycerol, and to fix responsibility. The inquiry revealed 
the existence of a corrupt and venal nexus between the drug firms, the 
E 
delinquent Food & Drugs Administration and hospital staff on the one 
hand, and the appellant, some other persons and certain Government 
officials on the other. The Commission's report was an indictment of 
the State's public health system. 
The Commission having found the evidence given by the appellant 
F 
self-contradictory, issued a show-cause notice to him as to why he 
should not be prosecuted for the offence of giving false evidence on oath 
under s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read withs. 340 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After considering the appellant's objec-
tions, the Commission directed filing of a complaint under ss. 193 and 
228 of l.P.C. The appellant filed a petition in the High Court assailing 
G 
the legality and propriety of the order of the Commission directing 
filing of the complaint, and the same was dismissed by the High Court. 
Before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
(1) the Commission could not be deemed to be a Con rt for the purposes 
of s. 195(l)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless declared by the 
fi Commission of Inquiries Act itself, as stipulated in sub-s. (3) of s. 195, 
942 
B.W. HIRAY v. JUSTICE B. LANTIN 
943 
which provides that in cl. (b) of sub-s. (1), the term 'Court' means a 
Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted 
by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to 
be a Court for the purposes of this Section; (2) the Commission of 
Inquiry appointed by the State Government was merely a fact-finding 
body appointed by the Government for the 'information of its mind', 
and the mere fact that the procedure adopted was of a legal character 
and it had the power to administer an oath would not impart to it the 
status of the Court and therefore was not a 'Court' for the purposes of 
A 
B 
s. 195(l)(b) of the Code; (3) the question was not whether the appellant 
could be prosecuted for perjury for giving false evidence which was an 
offence punishable under section 195(l)(b), but whether the Commis-
sion was a 'Court''for the purposes ofs. 195(l)(b); (4) that sub-s. (3) of 
s. 195 of the Code had brought a change in the law to put an end to the C 
controversy, and this was.nothing but 'legislative declaration of the law' 
contrary t1J the law declared by this Court in Lalji Haridas' case, and a 
number of statutes contain such a provision in accordance with the 
existing legislative practice. 
The Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the. State contended 
that (1) the inclusive part of the definition of 'Court' ins. 195(3) of the 
Code was ex abundanti cautela and was merely declaratory of the· law, 
and (2) the first part of sub-s. (4) of s. S of the Act satisfied the require-
ments of the inclusive part of the definition of 'Court' as contained in 
D 
sub-s. (3) ofs. 195 ofthe Code. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, it was, 
HELD: (1) It could not be doubted that sub-s. (3) of S. 195 of the 
Code had been enacted by Parliament to implement the recommenda-
tions of the 4 lst Report of the Law Commission to remedy the uncertain p 
state of law due to conflict of opinion between different High Courts as to. 
the meaning of the word 'Court' in s. 19S(l)(b) and to that extent the 
introduction of the inclusive clause in the definition of 'Court' in sub-s. 
(3) ofs. 195 bad brought about a change in the law .. l966Dl 
(2) Law must be definite, and certain. If any of th"e features of the G 
law could usefully be regarded as normative, it was such basic postu-
lates as to the requirement of consistency in judicial decisi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.