PERJURY IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

If in an Arbitration proceeding after taking Oath, a party or a witness gives evidence which he
knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he is liable to be criminally prosecuted for
Perjury.

SECTION 191 IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE:

Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being
bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he
either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
Explanation 1.—A statement is within the meaning of this sec tion, whether it is made verbally or
otherwise.
Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this
section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he
does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know.
Illustrations
(a)  A, in support of a just claim which B has against Z for one thousand rupees, falsely swears on a trial
that he heard Z admit the justice of B’s claim. A has given false evidence.
(b)  A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he believes a certain signature to be the
handwriting of Z, when he does not believe it to be the handwriting of Z. Here A states that which he knows
to be false, and therefore gives false evidence.
(c)  A, knowing the general character of Z’s handwriting, states that he believes a certain signature to be
the handwriting of Z; A in good faith believing it to be so. Here A’s statement is merely as to his belief, and
is true as to his belief, and therefore, although the signature may not be the handwriting of Z, A has not
given false evidence.
(d)  A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he knows that Z was at a particular place on a
particular day, not knowing anything upon the subject. A gives false evidence whether Z was at that place
on the day named or not.
(e)  A, an interpreter or translator, gives or certifies as a true interpretation or translation of a statement or
document which he is bound by oath to interpret or translate truly, that which is not and which he does not
believe to be a true interpretation or translation. A has given false evidence.

SECTION 193 IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

PUNISHMENT FOR FALSE EVIDENCE:

Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabri cates false
evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine,
and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation 1.—A trial before a Court-martial; 1[***] is a judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is
a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.
Illustration A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be
committed for trial, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a
judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence.
Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under
the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that inves tigation may not
take place before a Court of Justice.
Illustration A, in any enquiry before an officer deputed by a Court of Justice to ascertain on the spot the
boundaries of land, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a
judicial proceeding. A has given false evidence.

SECTION 192 IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE:
Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or 1[makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic
record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement], intending that such
circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evi dence in a judicial proceeding, or in a
proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such
circumstance, false entry or false statement, so ap pearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such
proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an errone ous opinion touching any point
material to the result of such proceeding, is said “to fabricate false evidence”.
Illustrations
(a)  A, puts jewels into a box belonging to Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box, and that
this circumstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated false evidence.
(b)  A makes a false entry in his shop-book for the purpose of using it as corroborative evidence in a Court
of Justice. A has fabricated false evidence.
(c)  A, with the intention of causing Z to be convicted of a criminal conspiracy, writes a letter in imitation of
Z’s handwriting, purporting to be addressed to an accomplice in such criminal conspiracy, and puts the
letter in a place which he knows that the officers of the Police are likely to search. A has fabricated false
evidence.

SECTION 196 IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

USING EVIDENCE KNOWN TO BE FALSE:

Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he
knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated
false evidence.

SECTION 195 IN THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS, FOR
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE AND FOR OFFENCES RELATING TO DOCUMENTS
GIVEN IN EVIDENCE:

(1)  No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860 ), or
(ii)  of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public
servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b)  (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such
offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section
476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence
specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of
some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2)  Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub- section (1) any
authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send
a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken
on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first
instance has been concluded.
(3)  In clause (b) of sub- section (1), the term" Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and
includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central , Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a
Court for the purposes of this section.
(4)  For the purposes of clause (b) of sub- section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the
Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in
the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having
ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate: Provided
that-
(a)  where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the
Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b)  where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate
to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which
the offence is alleged to have been committed.

SECTION 199 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

FALSE STATEMENT MADE IN DECLARATION WHICH IS BY LAW RECEIVABLE AS

EVIDENCE

Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public
servant or other person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement
which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any
point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as
if he gave false evidence.
SECTION 200 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

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.

Explanation- A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the ground of some informality, is a declaration
within the meaning of sections 199 to 200.

SECTION 2(1)(d) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996

(d)  “arbitral tribunal” means a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators;

SECTION 340 IN THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

PROCEDURE IN CASES MENTIONED IN SECTION 195.

(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient
in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court
or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court,
such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-
(a)  record a finding to that effect;
(b)  make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c)  send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is
non- bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub- section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that
Court has neither made a complaint under sub- section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application
for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within
the meaning of sub- section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may
appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court.
(4) In this section," Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.

______________________________________________________________________________________

FRAUD AND FORGERY DOES NOT HAVE ANY LIMITATION

EFFECT OF FRAUD OR MISTAKE.- SECTION 17 OF LIMITATION ACT 1963
(1)  Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,
—
(a)  the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b)  the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of
any such person as aforesaid; or
(c)  the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
(d)  where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently
concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until plaintiff or applicant has
discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case
of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed
document or compelling its production: Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be
instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction
affecting, any property which—
(i)  in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to
the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been
committed, or
(ii)  in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction
in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake
had been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who
was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe,
that the document had been concealed.
(2)  Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within
the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of
the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order: Provided that such application is
made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may
be.

___________________________________________________________________________

FRAUD VITIATES ALL SOLEMN SOLEMN ACT

In Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf, (2006) 7 SCC 756, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that fraud vitiates every solemn act. Any order or decree obtained by practicing
fraud is a nullity.

“It is now well settled that fraud vitiated all solemn act. Any order or decree obtained by
practicing fraud is a nullity.
{See - (1) Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. [(2003) 8 SCC 319] followed in
(2) Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. vs. Girdhari Lal Yadav
[(2004) 6 SCC 325];
(3) State of A.P. & Anr. vs. T. Suryachandra Rao [(2005) 6 SCC 149];
(4) Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 190];
(5) Lillykutty vs. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST Ors. [(2005 (8) SC 283];
 (6) Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. & Anr. vs. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare [(2005) 10 SCC
465];
(7) Smt. Satya vs. Shri Teja Singh [(1975) 1 SCC 120];
(8) Mahboob Sahab vs. Sayed Ismail & Ors. [(1995) 3 SCC 693]; and
(9) Asharfi Lal vs. Smt. Koili (Dead) by LRs. [(1995) 4 SCC 163].} “

In State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149, it was observed that where land
which was offered for surrender had already been acquired by the State and the same had vested
in it. It was held that merely because an enquiry was made, the Tribunal was not divested of the
power to correct the error when the respondent had clearly committed a fraud.

“[8] By "fraud" is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party
himself or from the ill will towards the other is immaterial. The expression "fraud" involves two elements,
deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of
property, whether movable or immovable or of money and it will include any harm whatever caused to any
person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or nonpecuniary loss. A benefit
or advantage to the deceiver, will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare
cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the
second condition is satisfied. (See Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration and Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India)
Pvt. Ltd. ).

[9] A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair
advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an
advantage. (See S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath).

[10] "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a
conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative
stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim
relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage
by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes
representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the
representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A
collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the
transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not
amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be
perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including resjudicata. (See Ram Chandra
Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors. ).
****************************************

[13] This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Roshan deen v. Preeti Lal Ram
Preeti Yadav v. U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Ram Chandra Singh's case (supra)
and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamilnadu (2004) 3 SCC 1
[124 Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court, (see Gowrishankar v.
Joshi Amba shankar Family Trust and S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (supra).

[15] "Fraud" is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a
definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although
negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti yadav's case (supra).

[16] In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley, lord Denning observed at pages 712 and 713, "no judgment of a court,
no order of a minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. " In
the same judgment Lord parker LJ observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however
high a degree of solemnity”