The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the prosecution of a complainant for allegedly giving false evidence in a corruption case, holding that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are justified where the false statement is intentional, concerns a material aspect of the case, and prosecution is considered expedient in the interests of justice. Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar dismissed the appeal filed by Arjun Prasad Tripathi against an order directing his prosecution under Section 193 IPC.
The Court found that Tripathi had materially departed from his earlier version regarding the handing over and acceptance of phenolphthalein-treated currency notes in a bribery trap, and that his evidence was contradicted by other substantive material on record.
Background
The case originated from a written complaint made by Tripathi to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt Organisation, Rewa on March 23, 1987.
Tripathi alleged that Kunjan Lal Raikwar, who was working as Assistant Grade-II in the office of the Divisional Officer, MPEB, had demanded ₹200 as illegal gratification for forwarding his earned leave application and clearing his bills.
A trap was organised and Raikwar was apprehended. Phenolphthalein-treated currency notes worth ₹200 were recovered pursuant to the trap proceedings. The Lokayukt thereafter filed a prosecution report against Raikwar under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The Special Judge convicted Raikwar on September 30, 1993. However, while doing so, the Court observed that Tripathi had given a false statement during the trial and directed registration of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against him.
Raikwar later challenged his conviction before the High Court and was acquitted on March 28, 2006. The High Court, however, declined to interfere with the direction relating to prosecution of Tripathi for allegedly giving false evidence and directed the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.
Following this, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, by an order dated July 28, 2009, directed prosecution of Tripathi under Section 193 IPC. He challenged that order in the present appeal under Section 341 CrPC.
Appellant’s Arguments
Tripathi contended that the order directing his prosecution was legally unsustainable and had been passed without proper appreciation of the facts.
He argued that the notice issued to him did not disclose the basis for initiating proceedings and that a prosecution for false evidence could not be founded merely on differences between his deposition before the Court and his earlier police statement.
He further submitted that the trap case was old and that omissions or contradictions in his testimony could have resulted from lapse of memory. According to him, such inconsistencies did not constitute an offence under Section 193 IPC.
His counsel also argued that Tripathi had explained why his trial testimony differed from his earlier statement. It was claimed that the previous statement had not been recorded according to his instructions, that he had been asked to sign it in a hurry, and that it had not been read over or explained to him.
State Opposed the Appeal
The State argued that both the trial court and the appellate court had concluded that Tripathi gave false evidence and that this ultimately contributed to Raikwar’s acquittal.
It was therefore submitted that the appeal against the order directing prosecution was without merit.
High Court Explains When Perjury Proceedings Can Be Initiated
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, which discussed the principles governing proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
Referring to Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, the Court noted that prosecution for perjury should not be initiated too readily merely because a statement contains some inaccuracy. There must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a material issue and a reasonable foundation for the charge.
The judgment also referred to R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka and Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi, which emphasised that perjury proceedings should ordinarily be initiated in exceptional circumstances where there is distinct evidence of deliberate falsehood rather than mere suspicion.
The Court further referred to Aarish Asgar Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi, where the Supreme Court stressed that the false statement must be deliberate and intentional and should be capable of being tested against unimpeachable evidence.
Summarising the requirements, the High Court stated that a complaint under Section 340 CrPC may be made where:
- A witness intentionally and deliberately gives false evidence.
- The false evidence is material to the case.
- The Court considers prosecution expedient in the interests of justice.
Contradictory Evidence Related to Bribe Payment
The record showed that Tripathi had complained that Raikwar demanded ₹200 for clearing his travelling allowance and leave encashment claims.
For the trap, two ₹100 currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. According to the prosecution case, Tripathi handed the notes to Raikwar, who accepted them and placed them in his trouser pocket. Phenolphthalein traces were subsequently detected on Raikwar’s hands and trouser pocket, while the tainted notes were recovered from a matchbox near the toilet at his disclosure.
However, during trial, Tripathi partly supported the prosecution but resiled from the allegation concerning the actual payment and acceptance of the bribe. The High Court recorded that his inconsistent version regarding the transfer of the tainted currency notes ultimately resulted in Raikwar’s acquittal in appeal.
False Evidence Was Intentional and Material: High Court
The High Court noted that Tripathi denied in his deposition that he had handed over the tainted currency notes to Raikwar or that Raikwar had kept them in his trouser pocket.
At the same time, phenolphthalein traces had been found on Raikwar’s hand and trouser pocket. The Court found that Tripathi’s deposition was contradicted by other substantive material on record.
His explanation that he had signed the police statement and other prosecution documents in haste without reading them was found unconvincing.
The Court observed that the First Additional Sessions Judge had correctly concluded that Tripathi had intentionally and deliberately given false evidence and that the evidence concerned a material aspect of the case.
Appeal Dismissed
The High Court held that the First Additional Sessions Judge’s conclusion was based on proper appreciation of the material on record and found no reason to interfere with the order directing prosecution under Section 193 IPC.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Case Details
Case Title: Arjun Prasad Tripathi v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1559 of 2009
Bench: Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Date: September 21, 2026
