Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : HC Highlights an Important Aspect

Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : HC Highlights an Important Aspect

An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 18 September 2009 that dealt with S.340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

It has been commented in Punjab Tractors Ltd v International Tractors Ltd [2009] GCtR 3040 (Delhi) thus : - 

"An application under Section 340 of the Cr.PC ought to be normally considered at the time of final decision of the case only and not at the interim stage as the defendants/applicant have pressed in the present case. It is the settled legal position that the said provision cannot be resorted to, to satisfy a private grudge of the litigant. In fact the very genesis of this provision is to prevent complaints being filed of offences having being committed in relation to the court proceedings; it was felt that if such complaints are permitted to be filed, the same may be used to force the other party into giving up its claim/defence or to dissuade witnesses from appearing before the courts under threat of criminal prosecution." 

"A prosecution for perjury should not be ordered by the court before the close of the proceedings in the case in which false evidence is given. It is highly wrong for a court to take action under the said provision against a witness or a party for giving false evidence when trial is underway." 

"Formation of prima facie opinion that a person charged has intentionally given false evidence is a condition precedent for directing lodging of a complaint. The existence of mens rea or criminal intention behind act complained of will have to be looked into and considered before any action under Section 340 of the Cr.PC is recommended. Before setting the criminal law into motion, the court should exercise great care and caution and it must be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge in respect of which prosecution is directed. No prosecution ought to be ordered unless reasonable probability of conviction is found." 

"In criminal prosecution there is waste of public funds and time of courts. For this reason also in every case of perjury the court would not mechanically take cognizance or direct prosecution. Prosecution should be ordered only when it is considered expedient and in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent. Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution."

"A witness is entitled to an opportunity to correct himself."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link 

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/judgment

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as  18 September 2009.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.