JOTISH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 26-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

130 
JOTISH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY 
v. 
TifE STATE OF BlliAR 
April 26, 1968 
[S. M. SucRJ AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860, &s. 199, 2~1/ person can be prosecuted 
for false statement nlJt shown to be tOu(·hing on any n1a/~rial point or 
-corruptly. 
After a partition in his joint family in 1952, the appellant, together 
with his three minor sons, took over and carried on the family busincs~. 
He ~ercaftcr filed a suit in the business name against a firm cla.iming 
damages for CCitain infringements of tradC' marks. 
The trial Court rc-
.jectcd a contention of the defendants that the suit \\-·as not maintainable 
because the appellant's l!hree minor sons had not been impleaded and 
.decreed the suit. 
In the course of an appeal before a Single Bench of 
the High Court, the appellant filed an application for the addition of his 
three sons as parties and also filed an affidavit, as required by the Court, 
giving the respcO'Jve dates of births of his three sons. 
As the appellant, 
who had a large family. <lid not remember the exact dates. he sought 
information from the school authorities and on the basis of this informa-
tion, he stated the date of birt.h of one his sons as June 9, 1954 instead 
of December 12, 1951. 
While dismissing the appeal. the Court directed 
·the appe!lant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for com-
mitting an offence under sections 199 and 200 J.P.C. The appellant's 
pica that he had wrongly mentioned the date of birth due to a bona fide 
mistake was rejected and a Division Bench, in appea1, refused to interfere 
·v.·ith the order dirccring the appellant's pre>secution. 
On appeal to this Court. 
HELD : The appeal must be allowed and the complaint against the 
. appellatll quashed. 
Before a person can be punished under s. 199. it has to be proved, 
inter a/ia, that the false statement is •touching any point material to the 
object for which the declaration is made'. One of the ingredients of an 
·offence under s. 200, J.P.C. is that the declara.'ion should be used or 
attempted to he tLsed corruptly. Neither of these requirements 
were 
shown to have been satisfied. 
Considering that the date of birth was 
obtained from the school records, and that the appellant stood to gain 
·no advantage by giving a wrong date, the learned Single Judge should 
not have directed the lodging of a complaint under s. 
199 or s. 
200 
l.P.C. [133 A-DJ 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal Appeal 
No. I of 1968. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 10, 1967 of the Patna High Coun in Criminal Appeal 
No. 4 of 1967. 
Sarjoo Prasad and S. N. Prasad, for the appellant. 
lJ .. P. Singh, for the respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JOTISH CHANDRA V. BIHAR STATE (Sikri, J.) 
131 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Si.Im, J.-In this appeal by special leave Jotish Chandra 
Chaudhary, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, 
c~all~gl'.1' 
the order of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court m Crimi-
nal Appeal No. 4 of 1967, refusing to interfere with the order 
of the learned Single Judge directing the prosecution of the 
appellant under s. 199 and s. 200 of the Indian Penal Code or 
such other sections as may be found to be applicable. 
In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel 
for the appellant it is necessary t? set out ~e rel~vant fact~. The 
appellant with his five sons constituted a Joint Hindu Fa~y. In 
1952 partition took place. At that time three SI'.~ were nu.i;io;s, 
while two were majors. As a result of the partition the iomt 
family business, which was then being carried on under ~e ·name 
and style 'Ramnath Sarjug Prasad' was allotted exclusively to 
the appellant and his three minor sons. 
The appellant filed a 
suit (suit No. 5 of 1958) for damages against M/s Lakshmi Bom-
bay Thread Factory and others on the ground that the defendants 
had infringed certain trade marks registered under . the Trade 
Marks Act, 1940. This suit was decreed by the District Judge, 
Patna, on March 31, 1962. The defendants filed an appeal 
against the said decree. This appeal was numbered First Appeal 
No. 227 of 1962. In the suit one contention of the defendants 
was that the suit was not mruntainable because although the suit 
had been instituted by the appellant in his capacity as proprietor 
of the firm Ramnath Sarjug Prasad, his three minor sons, who 
were also proprietors Of the firm according to 

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