this
Court had observed that the sanctity of affidavits filed by parties has to be
preserved and protected and at the same time the filing of irresponsible statements
without any regard to accuracy has to be discouraged. It was observed by this
Court as follows:
“Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication of
justice of the rival claims of the parties besides determining the criminal
liability of the offenders for offences committed against the society. The
courts are further expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being
biased by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system
would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the
litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying upon false
evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is dependent upon
the statement of facts. If the result of the proceedings are to be respected,
these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in
accordance with the truth. The purity of proceedings of the court cannot be
permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient
grounds or relying upon false evidence inspired by extraneous
considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity
of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of
irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy.”
31. Similarly, in Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi (2011) 5 SCC 496
this Court
expressed the view that the filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed
with a strong hand. It is true that the observation was made in the context of
contempt of Court proceedings, but the view expressed must be generally endorsed
to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings. This is what was said:
“Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be
effectively curbed with a strong hand. Prosecution should be ordered when
it is considered expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent,
but there must be a prima facie case of “deliberate falsehood” on a matter
of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable
foundation for the charge.”
On the material before us and the material considered by the High Court, we
are satisfied that the imposition of costs by the High Court was justified. We find
no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 29125 OF 2008
M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc.
Versus
BOC India Limited & Ors.
Dated;January 11, 2016
