A HIRIYANNA GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application is filed under Section 340, Cr. P. C. , and undoubtedly involves a power that the Courts have been seldom exercising. It has unfortunately become the order of the day, for false statements to be made in the course of judicial proceedings even on oath and attempts made to substantiate these false statements through affidavits or fabricated documents. It is very sad when this happens, because the real backbone of the working of the judicial system is based on the element of trust and confidence and the purpose of obtaining a statement on oath from the parties or written pleadings is in order to arrive at a correct decision after evaluating the respective positions. In all matters of fact therefore, it is not only a question of ethics, but an inflexible requirement of law that every statement made must be true to the extent that it must be verified and correct to the knowledge of the person making it. When a client instructs his learned Advocate to draft the pleadings, the basic responsibility lies on the clients because the Advocate being an Officer of the Court acts entirely on the instructions given to him, though the lawyer will not be immune from even a prevention. If the situation is uncertain it is for his client to inform his learned Advocate and consequently if false statements are made in the pleadings the responsibility will devolve wholly and completely on the party on whose behalf those statements are made.

(2.) IT has unfortunately become common place for the pleadings to be taken very lightly and for nothing but false and incorrect statements to be made in the course of judicial proceedings; for fabricated documents to be produced and even in cases where this comes to the light of the Court the party seems to get away because the Courts do not take necessary counter-action. The disastrous result of such leniency or indulgence is that it sends out wrong signals. It creates almost a licence for litigants and their lawyers to indulge in such serious malpractices because of the confidence that no action will result. To my mind, therefore, the fact that the petitioner has pressed this application requires to be commended because it is a matter of propriety and it is very necessary at least in a few glaring cases that an example be made of persons who are indulging in such malpractices which undermine the very administration of justice dispensation system and the working of the Courts. This will at least have a deterrent effect on other.

(3.) WRIT Petitions Nos. 13928 and 13929/97 concern a dispute with which we are not concerned here. In the course of the hearing, one of the contentions raised was that respondent No. 3 in that proceeding Sri Ananda Shetty was disqualified on the ground that he did not hold any agricultural lands within the designated area. Respondent No. 3 filed a reply-affidavit by way of a statement of objections in which a specific statement has been made that the agricultural land Sy. No. 111, belongs to him. Not only this, but Annexure-R-1 was a document purporting to support this contention. The petitioner filed a rejoinder specifically pointing out that the aforesaid statements were false and also produced certified copies of the relevant records to establish that the lands stood in the name of the Sugar Factory and that the name of the Government has been mutated and in any event, respondent No. 3 was not the owner of those lands. Since the petition was disposed of on a different point altogether, this Court was not required to record any specific finding at that stage.