Legal Talks by Desikanoon

Supreme Court on Giving False Evidence before a Court

Episode Summary

On today’s show, we will talk about the case of N.S. Nandiesha Reddy v. Kavitha Mahesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 538, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed when prosecutions should be initiated in cases of giving false evidence before a Court.

Episode Notes

On today’s show, we will talk about the case of N.S. Nandiesha Reddy v. Kavitha Mahesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 538, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed when prosecutions should be initiated in cases of giving false evidence before a Court.

To know more about it, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/08/false-evidence-supreme-court-prosecution-193-ipc.html

Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1

Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD

Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon

Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook.

Credits:

Music by Wataboi from Pixabay

Thank you for listening!

Episode Transcription

Hi everyone.

Welcome to Legal Talks by Desi Kanoon.

I am Suyash and I am excited to have started this show.

The brief facts of the case are that there was a Legislative Assembly Election that was hotly contested. After the elections, one of the parties filed an Election Petition for setting aside the candidature of the Returning Candidate that was duly set aside by the High Court after conducting a trial. The High Court also held that the nomination paper of the Election Petitioner in the present case was improperly rejected by the Appellant who was the Returning Officer. Apart from it, the High Court also directed for registration of a Complaint against the Appellant/Returning Officer for giving false evidence to the Court, which is a punishable offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The non-acceptance of nomination papers by the Appellant of the Election Petitioner was considered to be improper, and in this regard, the Appellant had made some contradictory statements before the Court. It is predominantly in this pretext that the High Court had directed for initiation of criminal proceedings against the Appellant for giving false evidence. Now, let us understand the pertinent observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Firstly, the Court observed that “the mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution” and “the court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.”

Secondly, according to the Court, no motive of the Appellant has been established or suggested in rejection of the nomination papers of the Election Petitioner, and notwithstanding the conclusion of improper rejection of nomination papers by the High Court, it would be unjustified to say that the Appellant deserves to be prosecuted since no findings have been recorded showing intentional or deliberate falsehood on his part.

Thirdly, it was noted that even if a Court records a finding of intentional or deliberate falsehood in giving evidence, then also the Court is required to form an opinion showing expedient interest of justice to initiate an enquiry into the offence of giving false evidence.

Fourthly, according to the Court, it is trite that electoral process is the heart and soul of democracy, and the role of a Returning Officer is pivotal in this regard. Therefore, to maintain purity and sanctity of electoral process, it is imperative to not to expose a Returning Officer to Prosecution.

Fifthly, the Court also opined that even otherwise, there seems to be no intentional falsehood on part of the Appellant as in the present case, the Election Petitioner has failed to prove anything that would indicate that she had contest elections earlier or had a wide support base or that the Returning Officer was acting at the behest of any other candidate.

Sixthly, the Court noted that “the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with” and such success ought not to be made a ground to initiate prosecution against the Returning Officer by terming him as an unreliable witness.

Therefore, upon cumulative consideration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the direction by the High Court to prosecute the Appellant/Returning Officer.

That was all about the case. So, what are my concluding remarks?

This case teaches us that giving false evidence alone before a Court is not sufficient to have prosecution initiated against the delinquent person. What is relevant to be looked into is the interest of justice that would be served by initiating a prosecution. Conducting a trial and initiating prosecution consumes both time and money of the Courts and state authorities. Therefore, I agree that prosecutions under Section 193 for giving false evidence must not be initiated lightly. However, I found it to be a strange argument that to maintain purity of the electoral process, it is necessary not to expose the Returning Officer to criminal prosecution. I think that the Returning Officer is the most important official in conducting any elections and any mistake, even though how slight it is, must not go unpunished, as it would help in maintain the sanctity of the electoral process and if prosecutions would happen against the Returning Officers, then this fact would constrain them to remain extremely vigilant while exercising their powers. Nevertheless, I concur with the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the present case, the Appellant did not deserve to be prosecuted.