- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Randhir Singh v. State Of Haryana And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was convicted by the Supreme Court of India on 17-1-1996 for offences under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 356-57 of 1993. The conviction was based on findings that the petitioner had forged the signatures of Shri M.S. Ahlawat, Superintendent of Police, on affidavits dated 2-11-1993 and 5-11-1993 and had furnished false evidence. A sentence of three months’ imprisonment was imposed and has already been served by the petitioner.
Shri M.S. Ahlawat, convicted on similar facts, separately challenged his conviction in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 353 of 1997. On 27-10-1999, the Supreme Court allowed his petition and set aside the conviction, holding that: (a) the mandatory procedure in Section 195 CrPC read with Section 340 CrPC had not been followed, and (b) the Supreme Court lacks original criminal jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 193 IPC.
The present writ petition under Article 32 seeks identical relief. During its pendency, the petitioner filed an affidavit undertaking not to claim compensation or initiate any further proceedings arising from the now-quashed conviction, except to use this order in any departmental or service matters.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner’s conviction under Section 193 IPC is vitiated for non-compliance with the procedural safeguards in Section 195 CrPC read with Section 340 CrPC.
- Whether the Supreme Court, acting in its writ jurisdiction, possessed original criminal jurisdiction to try and convict the petitioner for an offence under Section 193 IPC.
- Whether, after setting aside the conviction, the Court should direct that a complaint be filed before a competent court under Section 340 CrPC.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order dated 27-10-1999 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 353 of 1997 (Shri M.S. Ahlawat) |
|
The Court applied the same reasoning to the present petitioner and held that the earlier conviction suffers from identical procedural and jurisdictional defects, necessitating its quashing. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court noted that in the petitioner’s case, as in Shri M.S. Ahlawat’s case, the mandatory statutory procedure requiring a complaint under Section 195 CrPC and an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC had not been followed before the petitioner was tried and convicted for perjury.
2. Referring to its earlier decision of 27-10-1999, the Court reiterated that it does not possess original jurisdiction to try offences under Section 193 IPC; such trials must commence in a court of competent criminal jurisdiction upon a proper complaint.
3. Because the legal and factual matrix is “identical,” the Court held that the prior conviction stands on the same flawed footing and must therefore be quashed.
4. On the question of initiating fresh proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, the Court took into account the “special features of the case,” particularly that the petitioner had already served the entire sentence, and deemed it inappropriate to order a fresh complaint.
5. The affidavit filed by the petitioner—undertaking not to claim compensation or initiate further proceedings, save for use of the order in departmental matters—was acknowledged. This undertaking informed the Court’s decision not to grant any ancillary relief or direct further prosecution.
Holding and Implications
CONVICTION SET ASIDE AND ORDER OF 17-1-1996 RECALLED.
Implications:
- The petitioner’s criminal record for the offence under Section 193 IPC is expunged; the conviction and sentence of three months’ imprisonment stand nullified.
- No new prosecution under Section 340 CrPC will be initiated by the Supreme Court in this matter.
- Pursuant to the petitioner’s undertaking, the quashing of conviction does not entitle him to claim compensation; however, he may rely on this order in any departmental or service-related proceedings initiated by the State of Haryana.
- The decision reiterates the procedural safeguards under Section 195 and Section 340 CrPC and confirms that the Supreme Court cannot exercise original criminal jurisdiction for perjury trials, but it does not create a new precedent beyond reinforcing the earlier ruling in the M.S. Ahlawat matter.
S. Rajendra Babu, J.— This writ petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging conviction under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a proceeding arising in Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 356-57 of 1993. On 17-1-1996 an order was made by this Court on receipt of reports from the District Judge, Faridabad and the Central Bureau of Investigation and after issue of a notice as to why the petitioner should not be convicted for forgery of signatures of Shri M.S Ahlawat, Superintendent of Police on the affidavits dated 2-11-1993 and 5-11-1993 and also for contempt of this Court for furnishing false evidence. Thereafter, this Court passed an order on 17-1-1996 whereby the petitioner was held to have committed the offences under Section 193 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner has served out this period of imprisonment. Along with the petitioner Shri M.S Ahlawat, Superintendent of Police, was also convicted in similar circumstances. He filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 353 of 1997 challenging his conviction under Section 193 IPC. On 27-10-1999, we allowed the said Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 353 of 1997 by setting aside the conviction under Section 193 IPC. By accepting the plea as to non-compliance with the procedure required under Section 195 CrPC read with Section 340 CrPC and also on account of want of original jurisdiction of this Court to try a criminal offence under Section 193 IPC, we held that the punishment was liable to be quashed. The situation in the present case is identical on this aspect. Following the said judgment and for the reasons stated therein the sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 193 IPC is also liable to be quashed.
2. At this stage, the petitioner has filed an affidavit, inter alia, stating:
“That I undertake to this Hon'ble Court that in case my conviction under Section 193 IPC is set aside I will not claim any compensation or initiate any proceedings before this Hon'ble Court or any other court arising out of my conviction under Section 193 IPC or for the sentence I had undergone pursuant to the said conviction, save and except using any order passed by this Hon'ble Court, setting aside my conviction under Section 193 IPC in any proceedings initiated by State in relation to my service in the Haryana Police and/or any departmental proceedings.”
3. Considering the special features of the case, we do not think that this is a fit case to direct the filing of a complaint in the competent court as envisaged by Section 340 CrPC because the petitioner has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him for an offence under Section 193 IPC although set aside now by this order.
4. Therefore, we set aside the order made in Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 356-57 of 1993 convicting the petitioner under Section 193 IPC and the same is hereby recalled. It is made clear that this order will not enable the petitioner to claim any compensation or initiate any proceedings in any court arising out of his conviction under Section 193 IPC except to use the same in any proceeding initiated against the petitioner departmentally regarding his services.
Alert