N S Nandiesha Reddy Vs Kavitha Mahesh (2021)

CITATION	2021 SCC ONLINE SC 538
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	3rd  August 2021
COURT	The Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	N.S. Nandiesha Reddy and Ashok Mensinkai
RESPONDENT	Kavitha Mahesh
BENCH	N.V. Ramana, C.J., A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

The following decision is concerned with the concept of perjury. It stated that knowingly providing false evidence fits under the definition of perjury. However, contradictory or inconsistent statements do not constitute grounds for prosecution of the witness under Section 193 of the IPC. The appellants in this case are contesting the June 1, 2012, ruling delivered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Election Petition No. 7/2008. The case arose following the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly elections in April/May 2008.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In this case, both Appellants had filed separate civil appeals to challenge an order issued by the Karnataka High Court in an election petition. 
2. Mr. Nandiesha Reddy (Appellant No.1) was elected from the 151 K.R. Pura Legislative Assembly Constituency
3. Kavitha Mahesh (Respondent) alleged that her nomination was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, Ashok Mensinkai(Appellant No.2)
4. Kavitha Mahesh filed an election petition challenging Nandiesha Reddy’s election.
5. The ruling declared N.S. Nandiesha Reddy (Appellant no.1)’s election to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the K.R. Pura Constituency void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act of 1951. 
6. The court also directed the Registrar General of the High Court to register a complaint against Ashok Mensinkai (Appellant No.2) under Section 193 of the IPC for perjury.
7. The term of Appellant no.1 as an MLA, was from 2008-2013. When his election was declared void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, he appealed against this; the Supreme Court granted a stay, and he was able to complete his tenure. Hence, the learned counsel for Appellant No. 1 contended that since his client had already completed his term in 2013, this appeal had become infructuous.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the learned Judge reach a proper conclusion regarding the alleged falsehoods in the testimony of the returning officer?
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of perjury against the Returning Officer?
3. Whether the learned Judge erred in directing the prosecution of the Returning Officer without establishing intentional falsehood?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

The appellant, Ashok Mensinkai, contended that:

1. The High Court judge failed to reach a proper and definitive finding concerning his remarks being purposeful falsehoods.
2. He consistently narrated facts in a sequential order throughout his testimony.
3. He was first included as a respondent on the election petition but was later deleted. This denied him the opportunity to file a written statement.
4. He was examined by the election petitioner (Kavitha Mahesh), but she did not cross-examine him even after considering him a hostile witness.
5. The judge’s reliance on one version for a case decision should not be the primary reason for ordering prosecution.
6. No chance was given to him under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code before directing prosecution.
7. There is no material fact that Mr. Ashok Mensinkai intended to lie.
8. He had accepted 30 nomination papers from 18 different candidates for the same election and on 23.04.2008 i.e., the last day itself he had received 18 nomination papers and one more would not have made any difference. In that view, he contends that the order is not sustainable.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

The Respondent, Kavitha Mahesh, contended that:

1. By declining to accept her nomination, the appellant (Ashok Mensinkai) denied her the opportunity to run in the elections.
2. The learned Judge noted inconsistencies in the appellant’s evidence, which supported his improper action.
3. The learned Judge has therefore rightly arrived at the conclusion to direct prosecution, and such order does not call for interference is her contention.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court after hearing both parties disposed of Nandiesha Reddy’s appeal as infructuous and set aside the order passed by the High Court to prosecute Appellant No. 2 . The Apex court noted that there was no clear evidence of intentional falsehood in Ashok Mensinkai’s testimony and mere inconsistencies in statements are insufficient to justify perjury prosecution. Contradictory statements in a judicial proceeding are not always sufficient grounds for prosecution under Section 199 of the IPC. In terms of the Returning Officer’s prosecution, the Court determined that the High Court was not justified in opining that the evidence presented was inconsistent and that he should be charged, as there were no findings of deliberate or purposeful falsehoods.

ANALYSIS

The Court noted that Nandiesha Reddy’s appeal has rendered itself infructuous and restricted its consideration to the question as to whether the appellant Mr. Ashok Mensinkai should face criminal charges, and whether this is necessary in the current situation.

The ground of improper rejection of the nomination paper and the conclusion of the learned High Court Judge on that aspect fades into insignificance as the apex court limits its aspect to the statements made by the appellant in his evidence as PW.3 which are considered by the learned Judge to be inconsistent and, therefore, stated to amount to perjury.

The apex court referred extracted portion of the earlier order dated 15.06.2011 indicating an observation made by the learned Judge to indicate that he has gone back on the version wherein he had stated that the last nomination paper was received at 2.58 pm but later mentioned it was after 3.00 pm and on being cautioned by the court he goes back to the earlier version of 2.58 pm etc. And concluded that they do not see any deliberate falsehood uttered by the appellant; much less is there any inconsistency. The court also considered that the evidence was being tendered after more than three years and all inconsequential events cannot be recalled with precision. Mere reference to inconsistent statements alone is not sufficient to take action unless a definite finding is given that they are irreconcilable; one is opposed to the other to make one of them deliberately false.As a result, the order given to the Registrar General of the High Court to begin the proceedings by filing a criminal complaint cannot be upheld in light of the facts and circumstances presented above.

The court also noted that other relevant facts also indicate that the factual matrix herein does not indicate that it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry and expose the appellant to criminal prosecution.

Furthermore, there is no allegation that the Returning Officer acted at the request or on behalf of any other candidate who felt intimidated by the election petitioner’s participation in the electoral process. A vital fact considered by the Court was that Appellant No. 2 was 59 years old when he was deposed in 2011, thus he must be about 69 now. In addition, he retired from the service nearly 8 years ago. As a result, bringing criminal charges against him for perjury would be impractical, unreasonable, and unjustified.

CONCLUSION

This Supreme Court case upheld the legal doctrine that “even in a case where the Court concludes the aspect of intentional false evidence, still the Court has to form an opinion whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offenses of false evidence, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the likely implications of such a prosecution. As a result, the Court reversed the judgment to file a case under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the second appellant.

Reference

1. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/610a27d7e25672e18a12e811
2. https://www.barandbench.com/columns/the-lawyers-digest-supreme-court-judgments-august-2021

Written by Chukki Anagha C an intern under legal vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.