Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
JOTISH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF BIHAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
26/04/1968
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M.
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M.
BACHAWAT, R.S.
CITATION:
1969 AIR 7 1969 SCR (1) 130
ACT:
Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 199, 200-If person can be
prosecuted for false statement not shown to be touching on
any material point or corruptly.
HEADNOTE:
After a partition in his joint family in 1952, the
appellant, together with his three minor sons, took over and
carried on the family business. He Thereafter filed a suit
in the business name against a firm claiming damages for
certain infringements of trade marks. The trial Court re-
jected a contention of the defendants that the suit was not
maintainable because the appellant three minor sons had not
been impleaded and decreed the suit. In the course of an
appeal before a Single Beach of the High Court, the
appellant filed an application for the addition of his three
sons as parties and also :filed an, affidavit, as required
by the Court, giving the respective dates of births of his
three sons. As the appellant,who had a large family, did
not remember the exact dates, he sought information from the
school authorities and on the basis of this information, he
stated the date of birth of one his sons as June 9, 1954
instead of December 12, 1951. While dismissing the appeal,
the Court directed the appellant to show cause why he should
not be prosecuted for committing an offence under sections
199 and 200 I.P.C. The appellant’s plea that he had wrongly
mentioned the date of birth due to a bona fide -mistake was
rejected and a Division Bench, in appeal, refused to
interfere with the order directing the appellant’s
prosecution.
On appeal to this Court.
HELD : The -appeal must be allowed and the complaint against
the appellant quashed.
Before a person can be punished under s. 199, it has to be
proved, inter alia, that the false statement is ’touching
any point material to the ,object for which the declaration
is made’. One of the ingredients of an ,Offence under s.
200 I.P.C. is that the declaration should be used or
attempted to be used corruptly. Neither of these
requirements were shown to have been satisfied. Considering
that the date of birth was obtained from the school records,
and that the appellant stood to gain ,no advantage by giving
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
a wrong date, the learned Single Judge should not have
directed the lodging of a complaint under s. 199 or s. 200
I.P.C. [133 A-D]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 1 of
1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 1 0, 1967 of the Patna High Court in Criminal
Appeal ’No. 4 of 1967.
Sarjoo Prasad and S. N. Prasad, for the appellant.
U. P. Singh, for the respondent.
131
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J.-In this appeal by special leave Jotish Chandra
Chaudhary, hereinafter referred to as the appellant,
challenges the order of a Division Bench of the Patna High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1967, refusing to
interfere with the order of the, learned Single Judge
directing the prosecution of the appellant under s. 199 and
s. 200 of the Indian Penal Code or such other sections as
may be found to be applicable.
In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned
counsel for the appellant it is necessary to set out the
relevant facts. The appellant with his five sons
constituted a Joint Hindu Family. In 1952 partition took
place. At that time three sons were minors, while two were
majors. As a result of the partition the joint family
business, which was then being carried on under the name and
style ’Ramnath Sarjug Prasads’ was allotted exclusively to
the appellant and his three minor sons. The appellant filed
a suit (suit No. 5 of 1958) for damages against M/s Lakshmi
Bombay Thread Factory and others on the ground that the
defendants had infringed certain trade marks registered
under the Trade Marks Act, 1940. This suit was decreed by
the District Judge,, Patna, on March 31, 1962. The
defendants filed an appeal against the said decree. This
appeal was numbered First Appeal No. 227 of 1962. In the
suit one contention of the defendants was that the suit was
not maintainable because although the suit had been
instituted by the appellant in his capacity as proprietor of
the firm Ramnath Sarjug Prasad, his three minor sons, who
were also proprietors of the firm according to the partition
deed dated November 2, 1952, had not been impleaded. The
learned District Judge held on this point that it was open
to the plaintiff to sue on behalf of the entire family
comprising himself and his minor sons as karta of his family
without impleading the minors. In the course of the hearing
of the appeal before the learned Single Judge, the appellant
filed a petition under O. I r. 10, C.P.C., on May 1, 1967,
for addition of parties. On the same day the learned Single
Judge directed the appellant to file an affidavit by May 2,
1967, giving the respective dates of birth of his three
minor sons who were to be added as parties to the said
appeal. The appellant, who has a large family, did hot
remember the exact dates of birth of his sons and sought
information from the school authorities. The appellant
received information from the PrinciPal. Ram Mohan Roy
Seminary, Patna, on May 2, 1967, that the date of birth of
Subhas alias Ashok Kumar Jayaswal was June 9, 1954. On the
same date the appellant swore and filed an affidavit stating
therein the above date of birth of Subhas alias Ashok Kumar
Jayaswal. The learned Single Judge in the judgment
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
disposing of Appeal No. 227 of 1962 observed
132
.lm15
"In conclusion, I would like to mention that the statement
made by plaintiff-respondent Jotish Chandra Chaudhary in the
affidavit sworn and filed by him in this Court on 2-5-1967
about the date of birth of his youngest son Subhas being 9th
June, 1954 appears to be false to his knowledge, as shown by
the fact that this plaintiff-respondent himself was one of
the executants in the Partition Deed (Ext.B) which is dated
2-11-1952 and he executed the same for himself as well as
guardian of his three minor sons including the aforesaid
Subhas. He is therefore directed to show cause by 21-7-1967
as to why he shall not be prosecuted for committing offences
under sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code or such
other sections as may be found to be applicable."
The learned Single Judge, on cause being shown, was unable
to accept the plea of the appellant that the date of birth
of Subhas had been wrongly mentioned due to a bona fide
mistake. We may mention that Subhas was actually born on
December 12, 1951, and not on June 9, 1954. The learned
Single Judge observed
"This plea about bona fide mistake does not
appear to be all convincing or acceptable. As
is well known that the entries in the School
Registers regarding the dates- of b
irth are
often wrong being based upon wrong information
given at the time of admission of the students
and Jotish Chandra Chaudhary being himself the
father of the boy and being a party to the
aforesaid deed of partition, could not be
unaware of the fact that the date of birth as
entered in the School Register was not
correct. In this connection, it may be
mentioned that he is not an illiterate
villager but a business man living in Patna
City and running a business since a long time.
On a consideration of all the above aspects, I
am quite unable to accept the plea about the
date of birth having been wrongly mentioned in
the affidavit due to bona fide mistake and it
is evident that this date, was deliberately
given as it was thought at that time that this
version could ’be supported by the certificate
obtained from the school, and the fact that
could be detected by reference to the
registered deed of partition which has been
executed in 1952, had been overlooked at that
time."
With respect to the learned Judge, he has not considered
whether any advantage was likely to accrue to the appellant
for giving the date of birth of his son Subhas as June 9,
1954,
133
instead of December 12, 1951. As far as the appeal pending
before the learned Single Judge was concerned, it is not
disputed that this change did not make any difference to the
decision of the question of impleading the minor son as a
party or the decision on the question whether the suit was
maintainable or not. Before a person can be punished under
s. 199, I.P.C., it has to be proved, inter alia, that the
false statement is ’touching any point material to the
object for which the declaration is made’. There is no
suggestion that the change of the birth date touched any
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
material point in F.A. No. 227 of 1962. One of the
ingredients of an offence under s. 200, I.P.C., is that the
declaration should be used or attempted to be used
corruptly. It has not been explained to us how the
declaration was used ’corruptly. Considering that the date
of birth was obtained from the school records, and that the-
appellant stood to gain no advantage by giving a wrong date,
the learned Single Judge should not, in our view, have
directed the lodging of complaint under s.’199 or s. 200,
I.P.C. It is not clear what other section of Indian Penal
Code the learned Single Judge had in view.
In view of the above conclusion it is not necessary to
consider whether the judgment directing the filing of
complaint was in contravention of s. 479A(6), Cr. P.C.
In the result the appeal is allowed and the orders of the
Division Bench and the learned Single Judge set aside, and
the complaint, which is stated to have already been filed,
quashed.
R.K.P.S. Appeal allowed.
134