Mere Filing of Application Under Section 340 CrPC After Case Is Reserved for Judgment Won’t Oblige Trial Court to Reopen Proceedings: Supreme Court
In an important ruling on criminal procedure, the Supreme Court has held that the mere filing of an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), after a case has been reserved for judgment, does not automatically require a trial court to reopen the proceedings or hear the matter afresh. The Court clarified that such applications cannot be used as a procedural device to delay the pronouncement of judgments that are otherwise ready for delivery.
The Bench observed that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, which deal with prosecution for offences affecting the administration of justice such as giving false evidence or fabricating evidence, are independent and ancillary to the main proceedings. Consequently, the filing of such an application at the stage when the trial has concluded and judgment has been reserved does not, by itself, create any legal obligation on the trial court to defer the judgment or reopen arguments.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the decision whether to entertain and decide a Section 340 application immediately or after the disposal of the main case lies within the judicial discretion of the trial court. There is no statutory mandate requiring such an application to be adjudicated before the final judgment in the principal proceedings. Courts are therefore free to pronounce judgment in the main matter and thereafter consider whether prosecution for perjury or fabrication of evidence is warranted.
Reiterating settled principles, the Court noted that prosecution under Section 340 CrPC should not be initiated routinely. The provision is intended to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings and is to be invoked only where the alleged falsehood or fabrication appears deliberate, is supported by prima facie material, and where initiating prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. Mere inconsistencies or contradictions in evidence are insufficient to justify proceedings under the provision.
The ruling also reflects the Supreme Court’s broader concern against procedural tactics that unnecessarily prolong litigation. The Court has consistently held that once a matter has been fully heard and reserved for judgment, subsequent applications should not ordinarily interrupt the adjudicatory process unless they raise issues that are indispensable to the determination of the case. This approach promotes judicial efficiency while preserving the court’s authority to deal separately with allegations of perjury or abuse of process.
For litigants and practitioners, the judgment serves as a reminder that Section 340 CrPC is not a mechanism for postponing the conclusion of a trial. Instead, it is a distinct statutory remedy aimed at protecting the integrity of judicial proceedings, and its invocation after a case has been reserved for judgment does not, by itself, compel the trial court to reopen the matter or postpone pronouncement of its verdict.
