Procedure to deal with perjury

Section 344 of CrPC: This section introduces an additional alternative procedure to punish
perjury by the very Court before which it is committed in place of old Section 479 A
which did not have the desired effect to eradicate the evils of perjury.4
• Special powers have been vested upon the two specified courts: the Court of Session
and Magistrate of First Class to take cognizance of an offence of perjury which has
been committed by a witness in a proceeding before it instead of filing a complaint
before a Magistrate. The offender is tried and punished in the manner of summary
trials. This power is to be exercised after the matter has been considered by the Court
at the time of delivery of judgement or final order.
• The offender or accused would be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause
before being tried and punished.
• The maximum sentence under this section which can be imposed is an imprisonment
of three months or fine upto Rs. 500 or both.
• The procedure provide in this section is alternative to one under Section 340 to
Section 343 of the CrPC. A summary procedure can be opted for under this section or more severe and ordinary procedure can be resorted to under Section 340 of the CrPC.
The same lies on the discretion of the Court.
• The object of the provision is to deal with perjury and its evils in a summary way.
Perjury has assumed alarming proportions if oral evidence is taken into account. The
Courts need to effectively tackle this situation.

Section 340 CrPC: This Section provides hat when upon an application made to it in that
behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that
an inquiry should be made into the offences under clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 195
CrPC, which appears to have been committed in or relating to a proceeding continuing in
Court, or, in respect of a document that has been produced before the court as citing of
evidence in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, if it find
necessary, and make a complaint before the magistrate of first class who has a jurisdiction in
the said area.

Satish Kumar v. Union of India [2009 (108) DRJ 317]
The case dealt that prosecution under Section 340 CrPC in regard to a statement under Order
10 Rule 2 of the Code. A Part giving answer in an examination under Order 10 Rule 2 is
neither giving evidence nor an affidavit. Therefore, the same section would not be invoked
with Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code. It relied on B.K Gupta v. Damodar H. Bajaj [2001 (9)
SCC 742].

Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Minakshi Marwahand Anr (2005) 4 SCC 370
The Supreme Court was of the view that the Court is not bound to make a complaint
regarding commission of an offence referred to Section 195 (1)(b) CrPC but that such a
course is to be adopted only if it is required in the interests of justice. The expediency is to
be judged on the effect the fabrication has on the administration of justice and not the injury
that the person has suffered due to the perjury committed.

4. Mahila Vinod Kumari v State Of M.P, 1971 2 SCC 182 (India)

5. Tasleema v. State (Nct Of Delhi) And Others (2014) 4 SCC 375 (India)

article by ashabaribasuthakur27@gmail.com