Perjury: IPC 191, 193: suo moto cognizance by supreme court

Summary: Advocate gone crazy makes patently false statement about age of Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court initiates suo motu perjury proceedings against the advocate gone crazy.  The judgment is mainly useful to understand some of the important sections of IPC used to initiate a complaint under perjury.

The full judgment text is given later.  Important excerpts are given below about Sec 191 and 193 of IPC:

We are satisfied that such a statement supported by an affricative of the respondent was known to him to be false which he believed to be false and/or atleast did not believe to be true. It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC.  The  respondent  herein,  being legally  bound  by  an  oath  to  state  the  truth  in  his  affidavit  accompanying  the  petition  is  prima facie  held  to  have  made  a  false  statement  which  constitutes  an offence  of  giving  false  evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC.

19.  With  the  object  of eradicating  the  evil  of  perjury, we  empower the Registrar  General  of this
Court  to  depute  an  officer  of  the  rank  of  Deputy  Registrar  or  above  of  the  Court  to  file  a
complaint  under  Section  193  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  against  the  respondent  herein,  before  a Magistrate  of  competent  jurisdiction  at  Delhi.  Such  officer  is  directed  to  file  such  complaint  and take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint.

FULL JUDGMENT TEXT BELOW:

AIR2001SC2204,  2001(2)CGLJ499,  2001CriLJ2611,  2001-3-LW61,  2001
(2)OLR188,   2001(3)PLJR41,   2001(4)SCALE199,   (2001)5SCC289,   [2001]3SCR750,   2001(2)
UC163

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On:  12.05.2001

          Appellants :Re: Suo Moto Proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate 

Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
K.T . Thomas, R.P. Sethi and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. R. Karuppan, Petitioner in person

Subject: Constitution

Acts/Rules/Orders:
Indian  Penal  Code  1860,  (IPC)  –  Section  191,  Indian  Penal  Code  1860,  (IPC)  –  Section  193,
Indian  Penal  Code  1860,  (IPC)  –  Section  406,  Indian  Penal  Code  1860,  (IPC)  –  Section  429,
Indian Penal Code  1860, (IPC) – Section 471; Constitution of India – Article 217

Case Note:

Constitution  –  perjury  – Article  217 of  Constitution of  India and  Sections  191 and  193
of  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  –  suo  moto  proceedings  against  advocate  for  filing  writ
petition  with  false  affidavit  –  writ  petition  filed  for  issuance  of  writ  of  qua  warranto
against  Chief  Justice  of  India  (CJI)  and  to  direct  President  to  determine  age  of  CJI
under  Article  217  –  writ  petitioner  aware  that  age  of  CJI  determined  long  back  –
affidavit filed  with  writ  petition  false  –  petitioner  guilty  of  perjury  –  Court  directed to
file complaint under Section  193 before Magistrate of competent jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.

1.  Proclaiming  to  be  its  President,  the  respondent  Sh.R.  Karuppan  filed  a  Writ  Petition  in  the
name of  Madras  High Court Advocates Association  praying for  issuance of writ of Quo Warranto
against the  Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.  He also prayed this Court to determine the age of the
first  respondent  in  the  writ  petition  as  1.11.1934  and  further  that  the  first  respondent  had
attained  the  age  of  superannuation  on  31st  October,  1999  and  had  ceased  to  hold  the  office
since then. In support of the averments  made  in the writ  petition Shri  R.  Karuppan  (hereinafter
referred to as “the respondent”) also filed an affidavit.

2.  Before the  matter was taken  up for  admission, the  Registry  of this  Court  received  a  petition
signed  by  a  number  of  advocates  claiming  to  be  the  members  of  the  said  Association  and
alleging  that  the  Association  had  not  authorised  the  respondent  to  file  any  writ  petition  in  the

name  of  the Association.  Ignoring  the  disputes  stated  to  be  existing  amongst  the  members  of
the  Advocates  Association,  we  proceeded  to  consider  the  writ  petition  on  the  assumption  that
the  petition was either filed on  behalf of the Association or  by the  respondent on  his own  in  his
individual capacity  as well,  particularly when the  prayer  made was for the  issuance  of  a writ of
quo  warranto.  In  the  said  petition,  the  respondent  has  raised  the  question  of  the  alleged
disputed age of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

3. The writ petition was dismissed in limine observing :

“Now  Mr.  Karuppan  made averments  in the  present writ  petition that  ‘the  petitioner
submits that  undetermined  by the  President  and the  operation of Article  217  is  still
operative  and  within  the jurisdiction  of  the  President.’  He  further  averred  that  ‘the
petitioner  submits  that  the  conduct  of  the  President  of  India,  ever  since  the
controversy arose till  date  only  proves that the  dispute  has  never  been  determined
by  him  or  his  predecessor’.  He further  averred that the  press  note  released  by the
Government  of  India  to  the  Press  Information  Bureau  on  23rd  October,  2000,
reached  the  notice  of  the  petitioner  only  after  23.11.2000.  In  the  context  of  this
statement he concealed the fact that copy of the said press note was included in the
files  of  the  contempt  proceedings  initiated  against  S.K.  Sundaram  as  early  as
7.11.2000.  Mr.  Karuppan admitted  before  us that  he  himself appeared  in this Court
as Advocate for S.K. Sundaram on 20.11.2000.”

4.   Notice  was   issued  to  the   respondent   requiring   him  to  show  cause  why   prosecution
proceedings shall  not  be  initiated against  him for offence  under Section  193 of the Indian  Penal
Code.

5. During the pendency of these proceedings 600 and odd persons, claiming to be the members
of  the  Advocates  Association  submitted  in  writing  that  the  Association  had  not  passed  any
Resolution  regarding  the  age  of  the  CJI  and  that  Mr.  Karuppan  was  not  authorised  to  file  any
case  representing  the  Association.  As  the  notice  was  issued  against  the  respondent  in  his
individual capacity, we granted him time to file reply to the notice, if he so desired. In reply, the
respondent  has  reiterated  the  submissions  made  earlier  in  the  writ  petition  filed  by  him.  It  is
submitted that  he  believed  bonafide that the  President  of  India  had  not  determined the  age  of
the Chief Justice of India and even if any determination has been made under Article 217 of the
Constitution, the same  is  not conclusive for all times. It  is contended that the  respondent came
to  know of the  Press  Information  Bureau  release,  informing that the age of the Chief Justice of
India  stood  determined  by  the  present  of  India  as  early  as  on  16.5.1991  only  in  December,
2000. The respondent has submitted that he is not guilty of offence of perjury.

6. We have heard the respondent who has appeared in person and examined the whole record.

7.  Proved  or  admitted  facts  of  the  case  are  that  one  S.K.  Sundaram,  Advocate  sent  a
telegraphic  communication  to  Dr.  Justice  A.S.  Anand,  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  of  India  on
3.11.2000 which read as under:

“I  call  upon  Shriman  Dr.  A.S.  anand  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  of  India  to  step  down
from the  Constitutional  Office  of  Chief Justice  of  India forthwith, failing  which  I  will
be  constrained  to  move  the  criminal  court  for  offences  under  Sections  429,  406,
471 Indian  Penal Code for falsification of your age, without  prej udice to the  right to
file  a writ  of  quo-warranto  against you  and for a direction to  deposit  a sum of  Rs.3
crores for usurping to the office of Chief Justice of India even after attaining the age
of superannuation.”

8. The  said  S.K.  Sundaram  also  filed  a  criminal  complaint  before  the  Chief Judicial  Magistrate,
Chennai  against  the  CJI.  On  a  note  put  up  by  the  Registrar  General  regarding  the  said
telegraphic  communication,  this  Court  vide  order  dated  7.11.2000  found  that  prima  facie  the
said  S.K.  Sundaram  was  guilty  of  contempt  of  court.  A  notice  was  issued  to  him  in  reply  to
which  he  filed  his  objections.  He  was  represented  by  the  respondent  herein.  During  the

pendency  of  the  contempt  proceedings  this  Court  was  informed  that  the  President  of  India,  in
consultation  with  the  Chief  Justice  of  India,  decided  the  question  relating  to  the  age  of  Dr.
Justice  A.S.  Anand  as  early  as  on  16.5.1991  holding  that  the  date  of  birth  of  Dr.  Anand  was
1.11.1936.  The  Court  was  further  informed  that  for  arriving  at  the  conclusion  of  Dr.  Justice
Anand’s age being  1.11.1936, the President has considered the following documents:

“(1)  The  certificate  of  matriculate  examination  dated   1.9.1951  issued  by  the
University of J &  K  in  respect of Adarsh Sein Anand  (the  present CJI) which showed
explicitly  that  his  date  of  birth  was  1.11.1936.  (2)  The  passport  issued  to  Adarsh
Sein  Anand  (the  present  CJI)  on  3.8.1960,  also  explicitly  showed  that  his  date  of
birth was  1.11.1936.  (3) The  report  prepared  by the then CJI  in  respect of the age
of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, who was then a Judge of the High Court.”

9. The President’s Secretariat issued an order way back on  16.5.1991 which read as under:

“The  petition  from  Shri  S.K.  Sundaram,  advocate,  Madras,  to  the  President  on
behalf  of  his  client  Shrimati  Kasturi  Radhakrishnana,  Chairperson,  Madras  Citizens
Progressive  Council,  Madras  and  the  records  have  been  perused  and  the  matter
considered  by  the  President,  in  consultation  with  the  Chief  Justice  of  India.  The
President  has  come  the  conclusion  that  the  petitions  of  Shri  S.K.  Sundaram,
Advocate,  Madras,  in  respect  of  the  age  of  Dr.  Justice  A.S.  Anand  of  the  Madras
High Court, be rejected and that no inquiry as stipulated under Article 217(3) of the
Constitution need be undertaken.”

10. While disposing of the contempt petition this Court held :

“We  have  absolutely  no  doubt  that  when  the  President  of  India  resolved  the
question  of  age  of  Dr.  Justice  A.S.  Anand  in  1991  when  he  was  the  Judge  of  the
High Court, that too pursuant to the contemnor himself raking up the question then,
the should have, as a dutiful citizen of India, realised that the said decision attained
finality  so  far  as  the  question  of  the  age  of  Dr.  Justice  A.S.  Anand  is  concerned.
Such  decision was  based on very weighty  and formidable  materials  available to the
President of India then.”

11.  The  Court  found  that  the  contemnor  was  guilty  of  gross  criminal  contempt  of  court  and
accordingly  convicted  him.  He  was  sentence  to  undergo  imprisonment  for  six  months,  the
operation  of  which  was  suspended  for  a  period  of  one  month  which  was  later  extended  upon
furnishing of an  undertaking  by the contemnor. All along during the contempt  proceedings, the
respondent  herein  was  present  in  the  Court  and  fully  knew  that  the  age  of  Dr.  Justice  A.S.
Anand  had  been  determined  by  the  President  of  India  on  16.5.1991  in  exercise  of  his  powers
under Article 217 of the Constitution.

12.  Despite  the  knowledge  of  the  determination  of  the  age  of  Dr.  Justice  A.S.  anand  by  the
President  of  India  and  the  finding  of  this  Court,  the  respondent  herein  and  the  finding  of  this
Court,  the  respondent  herein  filed  the  present  writ  petition  accompanied  by  his  personal
affidavit wherein he stated :

“The  petitioner  submits that  after the  passing  of the  above  said  resolution,  it  came
to its notice that on October 23, 2000 the Government of India had released a press
note to the  Press Information  Bureau. Therein  it had  been stated that on  16.5.1991
the  President  had  determined  the  age  of  the  1st  respondent  and  that  Sundaram’s
attempt  to  reopen  the  said  issue  in  1991  was  rejected.  Significantly  this  press
report  was  not  published  in  the  dailies  in  Tamil  Nadu.  This  renders  the  statement
dubious and no credence could be attached to this communication.”

13. He further submitted :

“The  petitioner  submits  that  the  dispute  which  had  arisen  as  early  as  in  1991,

undetermined by the  President and the operation of Article 217 is still operative and
within the jurisdiction of the President.”

14.  The  respondent  submitted  before  us  that  the  averments  made  by  him  in  his  writ  petition
were  correct  and  that  he  was  not  guilty  of  perjury.  Alternatively  he  submitted  that  he  had  no
knowledge of the passing of the order by the President of India in  1991, prior to 2nd December,
2000.

15.  Court are  entrusted with the  powers  of dispensation and  adjudication of justice  of the  rival
claims  of  the  parties  besides  determining  the  criminal  liability  of  the  offenders  for  offences
committed  against  the  society.  The  courts  are  further  expected  to  do  justice  quickly  and
impartially  not  being  biased  by  any  extraneous  considerations.  Justice  dispensation  system
would  be  wrecked  if  statutory  restrictions  are  not  imposed  upon  the  litigants,  who  attempt  to
mislead  the  court  by  filing  and  relying  upon  the  false  evidence  particularly  in  cases,  the
adjudication  of  which  is  depended  upon the  statement  of facts.  if the  result  of the  proceedings
are  to  be  respected,  these  issues  before  the  courts  must  be  resolved  to  the  extent  possible  in
accordance  with  the  truth.  The  purity  of  proceedings  of  the  court  cannot  be  permitted  to  be
sullied  by  a  party  on frivolous, vexatious  or  insufficient  grounds  or  relying  upon false  evidence
inspired  by  extraneous  considerations  or  revengeful  desire  to  harass  or  spite  his  opponent.
Sanctity  of  the  affidavits   has  to   be   preserved  and   protected  discouraging  the  filing  of
irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy.

16.  At  common  law  courts  took  action  against  a  person  who  was  shown  to  have  made  a
statement,  material in the proceedings, which  he  knew to be false or did not believe to  be true.
The  offence  committed  by  him  is  known  as  perjury.  Dealing  with  the  history  of  the  offence,
Stanford H. Kadish in “Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice” (Vol. 3) observed :

“History of the offence

Before witnesses  had any formal  role  in trials, there was  no  need for a  perjury  law.
In  the  Middle  Ages,  when  the  English  common  law  was  developing,  trial  by  battle

was  used  to  test  a  sworn  accusation.  Similarly,  for  the  sworn  denial  of  a  serious
charge  based  on  mere  suspicion,  an  ordeal  administered  by  a  priest  was  the
predominant  mode of trial  until  it was abolished  in  1215 as superstitious.  Finally, at
least  until  the  Assize  of  Clarendon  (1166),  less  serious  accusations  could  be
successfully  answered  by  “compurgation”,  that  is,  by  obtained  a  sufficient  number
of “oath helpers” to support the defendant’s credibility.

Trials  in the  modern sense  began to develop only  in the thirteenth century.  Little  is
reliably  known about the conduct of jury trials  prior to the sixteenth century,  but  in
civil  cases,  it  seems  that  genuine  witnesses  were  permitted  to  give  their  accounts,
although  they  could  not  be  compelled  to  appear.  In  early  criminal  cases,  the jury
seems  always  to  have  included  some  who,  aware  of  the  commission  of  a  crime  in
their  community,  brought  the  suspect  before  a  judge.  Those  witnesses  who  did
attend jury  and  retired  with  them  to  deliberate,  often  to  make  their  disclosures  in
secret.  It  was  the  verdict,  not  the  testimony,  that  was  perceived  as  either  true  or
false;  the  only  remedy  for  falsehood  remotely  akin  to  a  perjury  prosecution  was  a
seldom-invoked  procedure  called  “the  writ  of  attaint,”  created  in  1202  and  not
abolished  formally  until  1825.  Though  attaint,  the  jury  would  be  punished  for  a
‘false’ verdict and the verdict itself overturned.

Witness  first  testified  under  oath  in  criminal  cases  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  in  the
sixteenth  century.  No  witnesses  for  the  defense  were  permitted  until  the  mid-
seventeenth century, since they would have  been witnesses against the Crown, and
not  until  1702  were  defense  witnesses  permitted  to  be  sworn  (1  Anne,  St.  2,  c.9,
s.3  (1701)  (England)  (repealed)).  By the  late seventeenth century the jury  had  lost
all  its testimonial functions,  and witnesses thus  became the  sole  means of  bringing
facts to the judge’s and jury’s attention.

Since  the  early  common  law  had  no  established  mechanism  for  dealing  with  false
swearing  by witnesses, the Court of  Start Chamber assumed for  itself the  power to
punish perjury. This authority was confirmed  by statute in  1487  (Star Chamber Act,
3  Hen.  5, c.  1  (1487)  (England)  (repealed)). The first  detailed  statute  against false
swearing  was  enacted  in  1562  (5  Eliz.  1,  c.9  (1562)  (England)(Repealed)).  When
the  Star  Chamber  was  abolished  in  1640,  its  judicially  defined  offense  of  perjury
passed  into  English common  law,  reaching any cases of false testimony  not covered
by the terms of the statute.

Edward  Coke,  whose  views  strongly  influenced  early  American  law,  wrote  in  his
Third Institute,  published  in  1641, that  perjury was committed when, after a ‘lawful
oath’  was  administered  in  a  ‘judicial  proceeding’,  a  person  swore  ‘absolutely  and
falsely’  concerned  a  point  ‘material’  to  the  issue  in  question  (*164).  In  this  form,
the law remained unchanged into the twentieth century.”

17.  In  India,  law  relating to the  offence  of  perjury  is  given  a  statutory  definition  under  Section
191 and Chapter XI of the Indian  Penal Code,  incorporated to deal with the offences  relating to
giving  false  evidence  against  public justice.  The  offences  incorporated  under  this  Chapter  are
based  upon  recognition  of  the  decline  of  moral  values  and  erosion  of  sanctity  of  oath.
Unscrupulous  litigants  are  found  daily  resorting  to  utter  blatant  falsehood  in  the  courts  which
has,  to  some  extent,  resulted  in  polluting  the judicial  system.  It  is  a  fact,  though  unfortunate,
that  a  general  impression  is  created  that  most  of  the  witnesses  coming  in  the  courts  despite
taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and
stern  action  is  required  to  be  taken  for  preventing  the  evil  of  perjury,  concededly  let  lose  by
vested  interest  and  professional  litigants.  The  mere  existence  of  the  penal  provisions  to  deal
with  perjury  would  be  a  cruel joke  with  the  society  unless  the  courts  stop  to  take  an  evasive
recourse  despite  proof  of  the  commission  of  the  offence  under  Chapter  XI  of  the  Indian  Penal
Code. If the system is to service, effective action is the need of the time. The present case is no
exception to the general practice being followed by many of the litigants in the country.

18.  Keeping  in view the facts  and  circumstances  of this  case, the  record  of  proceedings  in  Suo
Motu Contempt  Petition  (Criminal)  No.5 of  2000 and Writ  Petition  No.77 of  2001, we are  prima
facie satisfied that the  respondent herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition (for
the  purposes  of  being  used  in  the judicial  proceedings,  i.e.  writ  petition),  has  wrongly  made  a
statement that the  age  of  Dr. Justice A.S. Anand  has  not  been  determined  by the  President  of
India  in  terms  of-Article  217  of  the  constitution.  We  are  satisfied  that  such  a  statement
supported by an affricative of the respondent was known to him to be false which he believed to
be false and/or atleast did  not  believe to  be true. It  is  not disputed that an affidavit  is evidence
within  the  meaning  of  Section  191  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  a  person  swearing  to  a  false
affidavit  is  guilty  of  perjury  punishable  under  Section  193  IPC.  The  respondent  herein,  being
legally  bound  by  an  oath  to  state  the  truth  in  his  affidavit  accompanying  the  petition  is  prima
facie  held to  have  made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence
as defined under Section  191 IPC, punishable under Section  193 IPC.

19. With the object of eradicating the evil of  perjury, we empower the  Registrar General of this
Court  to  depute  an  officer  of  the  rank  of  Deputy  Registrar  or  above  of  the  Court  to  file  a
complaint  under  Section  193  of the  Indian  Penal  Code  against the  respondent  herein,  before  a
Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at  Delhi.  Such officer  is directed to file such complaint and
take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint.