Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.31 seconds)

Crl.Revision No.58/09 vs State on 25 July, 2009

In BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Ors vs Ishwar Chand and Anr 2009(2) JCC 985 it was observed that section 344 has no application where neither any evidence was led by the petitioner/complainant nor any false affidavit was filed nor any other act or omission was committed on the part of the petitioner knowingly. In view of the aforesaid legal position, MD could not have been summoned by ld.MM to reply to the show cause notice u/s 344 Cr.P.C. as he did not appear as a witness . As regards, the ARs who appeared as witnesses in such proceedings, the requirement of section 344 Cr.P.C. is that such witness, should have given the false evidence knowingly or willfully, so the question of mens-rea is important. In this case, the ARs appeared and testified in routine manner. AR seems to be negligent in not carefully comparing the contents of the affidavit with the relevant record but it cannot be held that he had intentionally or knowingly given false evidence , so the 4 necessary ingredients are not established, even against the AR. The impugned orders in both the petitions suffers from illegality and are therefore set aside. The notice to the MD of the complainant company is recalled. Copy of this order be placed in Cri.Revision No.59/09.TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent to concerned court.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1