DR. S. DUTT versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

DR. S. DUTT versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

The facts of the case disclosed offences under ss. 193 and 196 IPC, not under ss. 465 and 471 IPC. Dr. Dutt's conduct, at most, amounted to giving false evidence or using fabricated evidence in a judicial proceeding, for which sanction in writing from the court as required by s. 195 CrPC was necessary. The...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. S. Dutt; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 August 1965
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against the Judgment and Order Dated February 12, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 260 of 1963
Outcome
Appeal allowed; prosecution for offences under ss. 465/471 IPC quashed.
Legal Topics
Sanction for Prosecution Under S. 195 Cr PC, Offences Relating to Forged Documents, False Evidence and Perjury
Criminal Law Sanction for Prosecution Under S. 195 Cr PC Offences Relating to Forged Documents False Evidence and Perjury

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. S. Dutt

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against the Judgment and Order Dated February 12, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 260 of 1963

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution for offences under ss. 465 and 471 IPC can proceed when facts disclose offences under ss. 193 and 196 IPC, for which sanction under s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required
  2. 2 Whether Dr. Dutt's actions amounted to offences under ss. 465/471 or under ss. 193/196 IPC

Ratio Decidendi

The facts of the case disclosed offences under ss. 193 and 196 IPC, not under ss. 465 and 471 IPC. Dr. Dutt's conduct, at most, amounted to giving false evidence or using fabricated evidence in a judicial proceeding, for which sanction in writing from the court as required by s. 195 CrPC was necessary. The prosecution under the lesser offences (ss. 465/471 IPC) was selected to bypass the requirement of sanction under s. 195 CrPC, which is not permitted. Consequently, prosecution for offences under ss. 465/471 cannot continue.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; prosecution for offences under ss. 465/471 IPC quashed.

Orders

  • Prosecution of Dr. Dutt for offences under ss. 465/471 IPC cannot continue.
  • Appeal allowed.