Perjury

False Evidence
Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the IPC deal with giving or fabricating false evidence. What
amounts to giving false evidence has been defined u/s 191. “The salient features of the former
section are as follows:
S-191: Giving false evidence.—Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express

provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any
subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false
or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
Explanation 1.—A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made
verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the
meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he
believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which
he does not know. Illustrations
 Intentionally making a false statement

 Declaration by a person who is under a legal obligation to speak the truth.”[1]
The giving of false evidence amounts to the practicing of fraud upon the court. Thus, to make
a statement of false evidence within the meaning of this section, it must be established that
the person was legally bound by an oath or an express provision of law (A) to state the truth,
or (B) to make a declaration upon any subject.1 The offence can be committed even when the
plaintiff or the defendant is not legally bound to do so but binds himself by an oath
voluntarily. In other words, he enters the witness box voluntarily, and makes an affidavit to
make a truthful sentence, but states something false.2
1
K.D.Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, (5th edition, Universal Law Publication, 2015) at Pg. – 331.
2
Ranjit Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 843.
Declaration
It was held in Mehrban Singh, that a declaration means a formal statement made in writing
and required by law to be made in writing. To invoke the section the statement must be a
false statement and the person making it must know or believe it to be false or must not
believe it to be true to this section. A false verification of a written statement filed in a suit is
an offence under this section. It is necessary to prove that the facts, which if accepted as true,
show that the statement made by the accused is not merely incredible, but cannot possibly be
true.3
Legally bound by oath or by express provision of Law, Etc
It was held in Fateh Ali v Queen Express4 that to hold a person liable u/s 191 it is necessary
that the accused should be legally bound by an oath before a competent authority
Oath
An oath or solemn affirmation is not a sine qua non in the offence of giving false
evidence.5 The offence may be committed although the person giving evidence has neither
been sworn or affirmed.6
An Express Provision of Law
Under it sanction of an oath is not necessary. There must be a specific provision of law
compelling a person to state the truth.7 When the accused is not bound by an express
provision of law to state the truth, he cannot be charged with giving false evidence.8
In the case of Baban Singh v. Jagdish Sitigh,9 the Apex Court held that where a witness
swears by a false affidavit in a proceeding before a Court, the offence would fall under
Sections 191 and 192 and is liable for punishment under the former sections.
3
Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, 11th ed., (1987) Vol. II, pp. 1721-1744.
4
(1894) PR No. 15 of 1894.
5
Queen v Sheik Edoo, (1865) 2 WR (Cr) 9
6
Shava, 1891 ILR 16 Bom 369.
7
Ranjit Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 843.
8
Hari Charan Singh, (1900) ILR 27 Cal 455.
9
1966 SCR (3) 552
Case name: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Mr. Omi and Anr10.
Date of Judgment: August 07, 2018
Brief Facts of the case: The case involves the contentious issue pertaining to sale of
counterfeit goods. In the case, the Petitioner i.e. Louis Vuitton Malletier had alleged
infringement of trademark and dilution and tarnishment of its brand Louis Vuitton by the
Defendants and accordingly sought permanent injunction against them.
Subsequently, an ex-parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of petitioner and a local
commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of the defendant. The local commissioner
in the Defendant’s premises found infringing goods. The defendant in his statement under
oath denied selling branded goods. Consequently, the petitioner filed another application
for appointment of a Local Commissioner and accordingly Local Commissioner was
appointed to conduct an investigation at the premises of the defendant. The local
commissioner found stock of more than five hundred counterfeit products of thirty four
different brands at defendant’s premises. Consequently, the petitioner filed the present
contempt petition, wherein the defendant’s counsel admitted that the defendant had lied
before this Court under oath.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court held that in case of Perjury,
the Court can invoke contempt jurisdiction. The Court further remarked that in a case
where a false affidavit had been sworn by a deponent, the Supreme Court had invoked
its Criminal Contempt jurisdiction under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 and punished the contemnor under Section 12.
Sec. 2(c) – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ
or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
10
2018 251 DLT 472
(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written,
or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever which—
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court;
or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration
of justice in any other manner;
(d) "High Court" means the High Court for a State or a Union territory, and includes the court
of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory.
In the case of Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia, (2000) 2 SCC 367 : AIR 2000 SC 833,
the Supreme Court held that a false statement deliberately made in an affidavit before the
court amounted to contempt of court.
Likewise, in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 376 : 2003 Cri LJ
2045 : AIR 2003 SC 3469, the Supreme Court held that filing a false statement or false
affidavit is contempt of court [relying upon the aforesaid Murray case, and also on Bank of
India v. Vijay Transport, (2000) 8 SCC 512; Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana,
(1995) 3 SCC 757].
In a similar manner, in the case of U.P. Residents Employees Coop. House Building Society
v. NOIDA, (2004) 9 SCC 670 : AIR 2003 SC 2723, it was held that filing of false affidavit
also amounts to contempt of Court.
Our attention was also invited to the Apex Court judgment in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of
Haryana [(1995) 3 SCC 757], where, dealing with a case of filing false affidavit, the Apex
Court held thus:
Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or
the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The
swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing
obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but administration of justice. The filing
of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the
party concerned in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be
permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery of by such acts or conduct
on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses.

Perjury

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perjury

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

False Evidence

S-191: Giving false evidence.—Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express

 Intentionally making a false statement

Legally bound by oath or by express provision of Law, Etc

An Express Provision of Law

Date of Judgment: August 07, 2018

Sec. 2(c) – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

You might also like