1. The petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 29-12-1990 passed by the J.M.F.C, Banahatti suo motu registering a case against the petitioner for an offence under Section 200, IPC for giving a false declaration knowing it to be false.
2. In Private Complaint No. 10 of 1990 the petitioner herein is accused No. 1 and the respondent is the complainant.
3. The said complaint is in respect of offences under Sections 361 and 343 read with Section 109, IPC said to have been committed by the accused persons. It was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C It is not known whether the police have submitted any report on the said reference. However, we are not concerned with those proceedings in this Revision Petition.
4. On 24-12-1990 the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order-sheet in the aforesaid private case wherein he had signed his name as Yellappa Ramappa Heggannavar. On 25-12-1990 he made another application for certified copy of the entire order-sheet in the aforesaid private complaint wherein he had signed his name as Yellappa (Chikkur) Heggannavar describing himself as accused 1.
5. It is noteworthy that in the complaint filed under Section 200, IPC, accused 1 is shown as the resident of Chikkur in Mudhol Taluk. In fact, in both the applications he has clearly mentioned that he is accused 1. Section 200, IPC reads thus:
“200. Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence”.
6. In order to attract this section, the declaration has not only to be false, but also one which any Court of Justice or public servant is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence. Section 199, IPC makes punishable, the making of a false declaration, whereas Section 200 punishes the use of or attempt to use false declaration. To attract the application of this section, the declaration must be used or attempted to be used corruptly. The word ‘corruptly’ has not been defined in the Code. It must therefore be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. According to Webster's Dictionary, ‘corruptly’ means ‘without integrity’, ‘contrary to purity’, ‘viciously’, ‘wickedly’. According to Black's Law Dictionary, ‘corruptly’ when used in a statute, generally imports a wrongful design to acquire some pecuniary or other advantage. The words ‘such declaration’ appearing in Section 200 have reference to the declaration dealt with by Section 199 with all its requirements. Section 199 deals with a declaration which a person is not bound under the law to make, but which if made, is admissible under an express provision of law on evidence and the facts declared without anything further. It is possible, as stated already, that in some cases the declaration may be both one which a person is bound by law to make and also one which by law is receivable in evidence as part of the facts stated therein without any other proof. In other words, Section 199 deals with statements and declarations made voluntarily provided they are capable of being used as evidence and which the Court is bound to receive as evidence. Whereas, Section 191 deals with statements and declarations falsely made by a person legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth. For example, statements under Sections 164 and 161(2) of the Cr. P.C, Sections 13 and 14 of the Oaths Act, etc. In order to fall within the purview of Section 200, the declaration must not only be false but also by law receivable as evidence by a Court of justice or a public servant or other persons.
7. Now coming to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner in his first application for certified copy signed as ‘Yellappa Ramappa Heggannavar’. In the second application he signed as ‘Yellappa Ramappa (Chikkur) Heggannavar’. If there was slight variation as to his signature in the second application, it cannot be said that he used the said declaration ‘corruptly’ with a wrongful design to acquire some pecuniary or other advantage. Further more, it cannot also be said that such declaration was false and also one which any Court of Justice or public servant is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to say that the petitioner signed his name on the applications for the certified copy with intent to gain any advantage or attempted to use the same as true knowing the same to be false in any material point.
8. In my considered view, the impugned order is highly perverse, arbitrary, manifestly erroneous, contrary to law and a gross abuse of judicial power.
9. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12-12-1990, made in P.C No. 10 of 1990 on the file of the J.M.F.C, Banahatti is set aside.
10. The petitioner-accused 1 is hereby discharged.