Perjury Is A Serious Criminal Offence Which Can’t Be Remedied, Making False Statement To Court Has To Invite Adverse Action: Delhi High Court

Observing that perjury is a serious criminal offence which cannot be remedied, the Delhi High Court has said that making false statements to the court has to necessarily invite adverse action.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that filing a false affidavit in court is a serious offence that undermines the very foundation of the legal system.

Observing that the legal system relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals who appear before courts, the bench said:

“When one makes a statement before the court or signs an affidavit, they are making a solemn declaration to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Filing of a false affidavit is a serious offence that undermines the very foundation of the legal system.”

Observing further that perjury strikes at the very heart of the judicial process by undermining the integrity of the evidence presented in court, Justice Narula added:

“The act of contempt can be purged or remedied, by the offending party, but in contrast, perjury cannot. Simply recanting or correcting a false statement cannot undo the act. Affidavits in a court of law have sanctity and cannot be taken casually. Thus, a false statement to the Court has to necessarily invite adverse action.”

The court made the observations while directing the Registrar General to draw up and make a complaint against a party for making a false statement and send it to the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate.

Justice Narula was hearing a case filed by a supplier of paper carry bags in 2013 against an entity namely M/s Lilliput Kidswear Ltd. and its former Managing Director over non-payment of dues.

In another company petition filed in 2012 by the supplier for winding up of the respondent entity under the Companies Act, the Managing Director had expressed willingness to repay the dues.

It was the petitioner’s case that an action for contempt must be initiated against the entity and the Managing Director for paying only three out of the ten instalments towards repayment of dues, which was in breach of the undertaking given to the court on various occasions.

Noting that the Managing Director filed a false statement in the reply to the petition, the court said that the reply categorically denied the liability for the payment of dues, in contrast to his earlier admission.

“He further undertook to pay Petitioner’s dues in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 01st April, 2013. Now, faced with the present contempt action he has denied his liability entirely by raising a plea of debit notes and has instead raised a claim on the Petitioner,” the court noted.

The court observed that the subsequent reply and accompanying affidavit prima facie contained false statements made in the course of judicial proceedings punishable under sections 193, 199 and 200 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“Respondent No. 2 has offered to tender an unconditional apology. However, in the opinion of the Court, the same is of no avail,” it said.

The court also said that such a contradictory stand without any cogent explanation is prima facie a deliberate false statement to mislead the court and that an apology by the Managing Director would not deter an action invited for perjury.

“Accordingly, this Court is prima facie of the view that offences under Sections 191 and 192 of IPC, 1860 punishable under Section 193, 199 and 200 of IPC, 1860 have been committed by Respondent No.2 in relation to the present proceedings,” it said.

Case Title: M/S GOKALDAS PAPER PRODUCTS v. M/S LILLIPUT KIDSWEAR LTD & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 314