DR.BUDHIKOTASUBBARAO versus MR. K. PARASARAN AND ORS.

DR.BUDHIKOTASUBBARAO versus MR. K. PARASARAN AND ORS.

The applicant's allegations regarding the giving of consent and authorisation for prosecution do not amount to 'false evidence' or 'fabricated false evidence' under law. There is no factual or legal basis for invoking Section 340 Cr.P.C. Neither respondent can be said to have committed the alleged offences, and the application is misconceived, untenable, and has no merit.

Parties
Applicant: Dr. Budhikot Subbarao; Respondent No. 1: K. Parasaran; Respondent No. 2: S.K. Bhandarkar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3830 of 1996 and Related Criminal Appeals / Application Under Section 340 Cr.p.c. Before Supreme Court, With Reference to Criminal Appeals and Previous Orders
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Prosecution Sanction, False Evidence, Frivolous Petitions, Finality of Judicial Proceedings
Criminal Law Practice and Procedure Prosecution Sanction False Evidence Frivolous Petitions Finality of Judicial Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Budhikot Subbarao

Applicant

K. Parasaran

Respondent No. 1

S.K. Bhandarkar

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3830 of 1996 and Related Criminal Appeals / Application Under Section 340 Cr.p.c. Before Supreme Court, With Reference to Criminal Appeals and Previous Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consent and authorisation for prosecution given by Attorney General and Chief Vigilance Officer amounted to 'false evidence' or 'fabricated false evidence'
  2. 2 Whether proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. should be initiated against respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's allegations regarding the giving of consent and authorisation for prosecution do not amount to 'false evidence' or 'fabricated false evidence' under law. There is no factual or legal basis for invoking Section 340 Cr.P.C. Neither respondent can be said to have committed the alleged offences, and the application is misconceived, untenable, and has no merit.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is misconceived, untenable, and has no merits; accordingly dismissed.
  • No proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to be initiated against respondents.