CASE BRIEF: JOTISH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1969 SCR (1) 130

CASE NAME	Jotish Chandra Chaudhary v. State of Bihar 1969 SCR (1) 130
CITATION	AIR 1969 SC 7, [1968] INSC 126
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice S.M. Sikri and Justice R.S. Bachawat
PETITIONER	Jotish Chandra Chaudhary
RESPONDENT	State of Bihar
DECIDED ON	Decided on 26th April, 1968

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court addressed giving false information under oath in the case of Jotish Chandra Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar on April 26, 1968. This case raised concerns over the applicability of Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Evidence is any statement made under oath that the court orders or authorizes and any document produced in compliance with its directives. All information and facts that support the truth are referred to as “evidence.”

Furthermore, evidence that is not true qualifies as “false evidence.” False evidence includes fabricating evidence, demonstrating something that has never happened, or simply changing an incident that has actually occurred. The Indian Penal Code, 1860’s Chapter XI addresses crimes against public justice and the use of false evidence. Evidence is any legal proof that is allowed to be used in court and intended to convince the judge or jury of the alleged material facts of the case. Information that has been created or unlawfully obtained in an attempt to sway the outcome of a court case is referred to as false or fake evidence. A statement or piece of paper used in court that is known to be false or is suspected to be false is considered false evidence. Any material or immaterial evidence used to prove a crime is considered criminal evidence.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant formed a Joint Hindu Family with his five sons. 1952 saw the split of the country. Two of the sons were majors at the time, and three were minors. The appellant and his three younger sons received exclusive ownership of the joint family firm, which was operating at the time under the name and style “Ramnath Sarjug Prasads,” following the division. The appellant claimed that the defendants had violated certain trademarks registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and brought a lawsuit (suit No. 5 of 1958) against M/s Lakshmi Bombay Thread Factory and others in order to recover damages. On March 31, 1962, the District Judge of Patna rendered a decree in this dispute. The defendants appealed the aforementioned decree.

The learned Single Judge instructed the appellant to submit an affidavit by May 2, 1967, stating the dates of birth of his three minor kids who would be joined as parties to the appeal. Due to his large family, the appellant could not recall his sons’ birth dates and contacted the school administration for clarification. On May 2, 1967, the appellant was informed by the Principal of the Ram Mohan Roy Seminary in Patna that Subhas, also known as Ashok Kumar Jayaswal, was born on June 9, 1954. The appellant swore on the same day and submitted an affidavit with the above-mentioned date of Subhas’s birth, also known as Ashok Kumar Jayaswal.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether Jotish Chandra Chaudhary’s false statement about his youngest son’s birthdate mattered in this particular case?
Whether as required by Section 200 of the IPC, the erroneous birthdate was utilized “corruptly”?
Whether the incorrect birthday listed in the affidavit was a genuine error or a deliberate fabrication?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the appellant

It was an honest error for him to have given his son’s incorrect birthdate in the affidavit. He said that he couldn’t recall every child’s specific birthday because he was a big family man. He checked his son’s school records for information to ensure everything was accurate; however, this resulted in the wrong date. He argued that the error was not deliberate or corrupt, which is necessary for prosecution in accordance with Indian Penal Code Sections 199 and 200 (IPC).
The appellant argued that the affidavit’s erroneous birthday was immaterial. A false statement must be pertinent to the declaration’s purpose in order to be punished, per Section 199 of the IPC. Chaudhary said that the erroneous birthdate was insufficient justification for prosecution because it had no influence on the case’s outcome or the legal question at hand.
A person can only face punishment under Section 200 of the IPC if a false statement is made to corrupt others. The appellant said that there was no proof indicating he had purposefully or dishonestly used the false facts in his affidavit to mislead the court or obtain an unfair benefit. He underlined that the absence of criminal intent in his acts—a requirement for conviction under this section—was paramount.

Argument on behalf of the respondent

The prosecution contended that by giving his son’s wrong birthdate in the affidavit, Jotish Chandra Chaudhary had made a false representation while testifying under oath. Making a false statement in an affidavit filed with the court is criminal under Section 199 of the IPC. They maintained that the misrepresentation amounted to delivering false evidence under oath and that Chaudhary had a duty to check the veracity of the material supplied in court filings.
The prosecution argued that since the falsified birthdate impacted the kids’ legal status in the family business litigation, it was important to the case. They maintained that this mistake was deliberate and not inconsequential in order to deceive the court about his children’s legal status with reference to the firm. They, therefore, asserted that the incorrect statement had a significant impact on the case.
The prosecution further claimed that the erroneous birthdate was presented on purpose to deceive the court, knowing it to be false. They proposed that the untruth was a purposeful attempt to influence the court proceedings rather than an honest mistake, as the defense had asserted. Because of this, the prosecution felt Chaudhary ought to be prosecuted under Section 200 of the IPC for willfully and corruptly using false information.

JUDGMENT

The Court noted that it must be proven, among other things, that the false statement is “touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made” before someone can be punished under s. 199, I.P.C. No indication exists that the birthdate modification affected any significant aspect of F.A. No. 227 of 1962. The use of the declaration, or an attempt to use it corruptly, is one of the elements of an offense under IPC Sec. 200. We have not been given an explanation for the “corrupt” usage of the declaration. The appellant stood to gain nothing by providing an incorrect date, and the date of birth was taken from school records, thus the instruction to file a complaint under Section 199 or Section 200, I.P.C., should never have been issued. What other portion of the Indian Penal Code the learned Single Judge was considering is unclear. Considering the aforementioned result, it is not necessary to investigate if the ruling mandating the submission of the complaint violated s. 479A(6), Cr. P.C. As a result, the complaint—which is said to have already been filed—is dismissed, the appeal is granted, and the Division Bench and learned Single Judge’s orders are set aside.

CONCLUSION

When someone pleads guilty to a crime when, in reality, they did not commit it, this is known as a false confession. People have been known to make false confessions when coerced, threatened, or suffering from a mental illness. In these situations, they may also be unable to comprehend the questions posed to them during cross-questioning or may not be mentally capable of responding to them.

An important study of legal culpability involving false claims made under oath, specifically under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), may be found in the 1968 case of Jotish Chandra Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar. The main concerns were whether Chaudhary’s false statement about his son’s birthdate in an affidavit was utilized corruptly and whether it was relevant to the case in any way. The Supreme Court ruled that Chaudhary’s fabricated birthdate had no appreciable effect on the case. The court decided that a false statement had to address a material issue related to the declaration’s purpose in order for someone to be charged under Section 199. The erroneous birthday was deemed non-material since it had no bearing on the main issue in the court case. The court also discovered no proof of corrupt intent, which is necessary for a Section 200 allegation. It was acknowledged that Chaudhary’s admission that he used school records to determine the date was an honest error.

The prosecution’s dismissal by the Supreme Court emphasizes how crucial it is to distinguish between willful falsification and unintentional errors. The case emphasizes that a false statement must be made with corrupt intent and be materially relevant in order for it to be punished under Sections 199 and 200. This decision ensures that people who make sincere mistakes are shielded from criminal prosecution and that inadvertent actions are not penalized by the law.