admin

Case for consideration: James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. [2024] 8 S.C.R. 332: 2024 INSC 601

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Decision date: 13 August 2024

Could a false statement land you in jail? India’s apex Court has provided the much-needed clarity!

James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. can be understood as a landmark judgment shedding light upon the interpretation and application of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which deals with punishment for false evidence. 

Notably, in the present case, i.e., the James Kunjwal judgment, the central legal issue before the Supreme Court of India was whether the filing of a false affidavit before a High Court, ipso facto, constitutes an offence punishable under Section 193 IPC.

What led to the present case?

The appellant herein was subject to a First Information Report (FIR) registered under Sections 376 (rape) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the IPC.  A bail application was initially presented before the Additional and Sessions Judge but was unsuccessful. 

Subsequently, the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (High Court), vide order dated 8th June 2021, granted bail to the appellant. This grant of bail prompted the complainant to file a bail cancellation, citing that the appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit before the High Court. This application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court after directing the concerned Registrar (Judicial) to file a formal complaint against the appellant for submission of a false affidavit. Resultantly, a complaint under Section 193 of the IPC was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.

The present Special Leave Petition arises from the aforementioned complaint.

Legal trajectory till date – what have courts previously held?

The definition of false evidence is dealt with under Section 191 of the IPC, therefore to constitute an offence under Section 193 of the IPC, the elements of Section 191 must be met. Section 191 states that any person legally obligated, through oath or other legal requirement, to provide a statement, who then makes a false statement, or who knows or has reason to believe their statement is untrue, is considered to have given false evidence. The statement can be verbal or by any other means and perjury includes falsely stating what one believes, not just what one knows to be untrue.

Under Section 193, the essential factors required to prosecute are firstly, false statement should be given under oath, and secondly, that such statement should be under judicial proceedings. Lastly, such statements be made before the authority that has been expressly deemed to be a “Court”. 

These essential factors were held to be sine qua non in the case of Bhima Razu Prasad vs State Rep. by Deputy Supdt. of Police. The apex court has time and again held that a conviction cannot be sustained unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made a false statement to mislead the court. To attract the provisions of Section 193, it must be established that the deponent made a deliberate false statement on a material matter intending to deceive the court.  

In Dr S.P Kohli, Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur v. High Court of Haryana, a medical officer was prosecuted for perjury as his statement was found to be false. The Supreme Court clarified that while initiating proceedings requires supporting evidence for allegations, sufficient grounds must still exist to justify activating the criminal justice system to avoid wrongful persecution.

In the case of Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr., the appellant in this case was also accused of filing false evidence before the High Court of Allahabad. The Court held that the prosecution in perjury cases should be in the interest of justice and not simply because there are minor inaccuracies in statements that could be irrelevant. The Court should only proceed with such a matter because it is in the interest of justice to adequately punish such delinquency and not just inconsistencies. Prime facie intention must be established for basing the charges.  Both the above-mentioned cases were again referred to in Himanshu Kumar & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. The Supreme Court thus clarified that a finding of perjury cannot be based solely on contradictory statements in affidavits. There must be persuasive evidence to demonstrate a conscious and wilful intention to mislead the court. 

In the case of R. S Sujtha vs State of Karnataka,  which was also referred to in Aarish Asgar Qureshi vs Fareed Ahmad Qureshi, the Court held that inquiry or contempt proceedings should be initiated only in exceptional cases where deliberate perjury aims for a favourable order from the Court, thus again highlighting the requirement of mala fide intention. 

Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) deals with the procedure of perjury or contempt cases. 

In the present judgment, the Court observed that the High Court was not ‘bound’ to make a complaint under the section unless it was in the interest of justice to do so. In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether a criminal complaint for forgery of a document used in civil proceedings could be initiated independently, or whether it required a complaint by the court itself under Section 195 of the CrPC. The Court clarified the scope of Section 195 CrPC, which bars courts from taking cognizance of certain offences unless a complaint is made by the court itself. The Court held that this bar applies only when the alleged offence is committed by a party to the proceeding in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in that proceeding. The decision emphasized the importance of a formal inquiry by the court before initiating criminal proceedings for offences like forgery or perjury. This inquiry is necessary to determine whether there is sufficient prima facie evidence to justify a criminal prosecution.

Laying down the law, final decision of the Supreme Court of India!

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, overturned the High Court’s direction to file a complaint for perjury against the appellant. The Court emphasized a crucial distinction: a mere contradiction or inconsistency in an affidavit does not automatically equate to the offence of giving false evidence under Section 191 of the IPC.

INTRODUCTION

In today’s global economy, Intellectual Property (IP) driven commercial transactions have witnessed exponential growth. With technological advancements and dynamic innovations, India stands tall as an important player in the world of IP. To ensure its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws keep up with international standards, India follows various international treaties and agreements. These international treaties outline the approach for a country regarding patents, trademarks, copyrights, and any other kind of IP.

1. World Trade Organization (WTO) and the TRIPS Agreement

One of the most important international treaties commanding India’s IPR laws is the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), which was created under the World Trade Organization (WTO). India became a member of the WTO in 1995, and since then, it has been required to follow the rules set out by the TRIPS Agreement. The TRIPS Agreement, which came into effect on 1 January 1995 , sets minimum standards for various forms of IPR protection, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, geographical indications, and trade secrets.The Agreement requires Member countries to provide a basic level of protection for IPRs as set forth under the Agreement, ensuring that there is uniformity across such countries.

Key aspects of TRIPS Agreement providing for minimum standards of protection of IP  in India:

• Patents: The TRIPS Agreement enforces the protection of patents for 20 years counted from the filing date, thereby providing patent holders exclusive rights to their inventions.
• Copyrights: TRIPS Agreement lays down that the term of protection shall be the life of the author and 50 years after his death. 
• Enforcement: TRIPS Agreement contains provisions that emphasize on effective enforcement of IPR, including criminal penalties. It specifically provides for criminal procedures to be applied for, at least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale.

2. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property

The Paris Convention is one of the earliest international treaties regulating IP. It was adopted in 1883 and India has been a Member since 1998. This Treaty deals with the protection of industrial property, including patents, trademarks, and industrial designs, utility models, geographical indications (GIs), etc. One of the substantive provisions of this Treaty is the Right of Priority, which allows an inventor or business in one country (on the basis of a regular first application filed in one of the Contracting States) to apply for protection in other member countries within a certain period of time, from the date of first application. Thus, in line with Right of Priority, Indian inventors can apply for protection in one of the Contracting States and then apply for protection in any of the other Contracting States within 12 months for patents and utility models and 6 months for industrial designs and marks without losing their original filing date. Whereas, in National Treatment, each Contracting State must treat and grant the same protection to nationals of other Contracting States that it grants to its own nationals in matters of IPR protection. The Paris Convention has made it easier for Indian IP owners to grow globally by making sure that their IP can be easily protected in several nations.

3. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works focuses on protection of works and the rights of their authors and has been in force since 1886, with India becoming its Member in 1928. It is based on three basic  principles i.e., principle of national treatment, automatic protection and independence of protection. The Convention ensures that works like books, music, and art created in one Member country are automatically protected in all other Member countries without additional formality compliances. The Convention also ensures that the rights of creators are equally respected, even internationally as authors, musicians, and artists automatically get protection for their work of origin in other Contracting States. Additionally, the Convention also provides for moral rights, that is, the right to claim authorship of the work and the right to object to any mutilation, deformation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the work that would be prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation. The Berne Convention is a  crucial instrument for Indian creators, allowing their works to be protected globally.

 

4. Madrid Protocol for the International Registration of Marks

The Madrid Protocol is an international system for registering trademarks in multiple countries with just one single streamlined application. India adopted Madrid Protocol in 2013, which allows Indian businesses to file for trademark protection in several countries with a single application. Businesses can protect their trademarks in over 100 countries with one application. The Madrid Protocol reduces the cost and effort involved in applying for trademarks in multiple countries. It offers a more affordable and streamlined way for businesses to register their trademarks globally. This has made it convenient for Indian businesses to expand internationally by legally protecting their trademarks.

 

5. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is regulated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and allows innovators to file one international patent application that is accepted in over 150 nations. India has been a Member of the PCT since 1998 and it has been of great  significance for Indian innovators who want to protect their inventions internationally. Patent applicants can file a single patent application that is valid in several countries. PCT allows up to 30-31 months to decide in which countries to seek patent protection, giving businesses more time to assess international markets. Also, PCT helps Indian innovators gain recognition and protection in global markets, which is crucial for international trade.

 

6. WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)

WCT and WPPT together are known as “Internet Treaties”. India signed the WCT and WPPT treaties in 2018 to address the protection of digital content, including music and films in the digital age. These Treaties are designed to provide more protection for creators whose works are used in digital formats or transmitted over the Internet.

How the WCT and WPPT Benefit India:

• Protection for Digital Works: Indian creators can now protect their works from unauthorized use online.
• Rights for Performers and Producers: These Treaties ensure that performers (like actors and musicians) and producers (like record companies) also have rights over their digital performances and recordings.

These Treaties are particularly important as the borderless digital world continues to expand, thereby ensuring that the work of Indian creators are protected in the online environment.

Conclusion

India’s IPR laws are shaped by several important international treaties that help Indian inventors, businesses and creators protect their IP worldwide. Thus, the TRIPS Agreement, Paris Convention, Berne Convention, Madrid Protocol, PCT, and WIPO Treaties play a crucial role in harmonizing India’s legal framework governing IP with global standards.Further, India’s active participation in the aforementioned treaties ensures that its IP remains competitive and aligned with the ever-evolving international best practices, also incentivising  innovation.