LexM.S. AHLAWAT versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B M.S. AHLAWAT v. STATE OF HARY ANA AND ANR. OCTOBER 27, 1999 [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] Criminal Law: C Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 142 and 129. Contempt-Punishment of-Powers of Supreme Court-Contemnor found to have filed false affidavits and made false statements at different stages before the Supreme Court-Supreme Court, after issuing a show cause notice to the contemnor, convicted him under S.193 !PC Correctness of- D Held: Such punishment is without jurisdiction-supreme Court ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under Ss. 195 and 340 Cr. P.C.- Hence, the said conviction set aside-But filing of complaint under S.340 not considered expedient because the contemnor has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him for an offence under S.193 /PC-However, E contemnor not entitled to claim any compe~ation or initiate any proce1~dings arising out of his conviction-Penal Code, 1860, S.193-Criminaf Procedure Code, 1973, Ss. 195 and 340. Articles 21, 32, and 142-Supreme Court's order-Recall of-Litigant complained of miscarriage of justice by a Supreme Court's order passed F without jurisdiction or without following the due procedure resulting in his incarceration and damage of his career-Supreme Court examine the correctness of the litigant's contentions and set aside the order. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 195, 340 and 482. G False affidavits-Filing of-Private prosecution-Permissibility of- Held: Not permissible-No court has jurisdiction to take cognisance of any of the offences unless there is a complaint in writing as required under those provisions-Complaint outside the provisions of S.340 cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or criminal court under its inherent jurisdiction. H 160 M.S. AHLAWATv. STATEOFHARYANA 161 The petitioner was found by this Court, while disposing of an earlier A writ petition, to have filed false alTKlavits with forged signatures. The petitioner " was also found to have made false statements at different stages in this Court. Therefore, this Court, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, convicted him under Section 193 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Article 129 of the Constitution for committing contempt of this Court. In this writ petition the petitioner had challenged his conviction under Section 193 IPC on the ground that this Court could not itself have convicted B the petitioner under Section 193 IPC but ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, the petitioner did not challenge his conviction under C Article 129 of the Constitution. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had undergone the sentence imposed by this Court under the said provision. Allowing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. When a litigant complains of miscarriage of justice by D exercise of powers of this Court which is without jurisdiction or not after following due procedure resulting in his incarceration in a prison losing valuable liberty for a period with the attendant catastrophe descending on his career and life this Court has no option but to examine the correctness of his contentions.1165-H) E 2.1. Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes as to how a complaint may be preferred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Private prosecutions are barred absolutely and only the court in relation to which the offence was committed may initiate proceedings. A complaint outside the provisions of Section 340 Cr. P.C. cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or F criminal court under its inherent jurisdiction. 1165-D-E) • 2.2. Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognisance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that Section. It is settled G law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution but to exercisejudicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of the administration of justice. 1165-B) Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, AIR (1971) SC 1367, relied on. H 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A 3. Under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court cannot altogether ignore the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders concerning an issue, which can be settled only through a mechanism, presc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.