Every sovereign state is duty-bound to protect its external borders and
maintain internal peace, therefore the two main functions of the state are war
and justice. i.e., to wage a war against any country that threatens peace and
provide justice to every person whose rights are violated and maintain internal
peace in the state.
Administration of justice simply means 'By Law'. It is a process by which a
government is executed by a legal system. In our country, the whole procedure of
administration of criminal justice is divided into three sets, mainly being,
'investigation, inquiry and trial'. For every offense under Indian Penal Code,
the process of investigation, inquiry, and trial is followed by The Criminal
Procedural Code, 1973.
Chapter XXVI of the Criminal Procedural Code lays down the provisions affecting
the administration of justice under Sections 340 to 352. The main purpose behind
the Criminal Procedure Code is to maintain effective administration that is
adopted by both executive and judiciary in order to dispose of criminal cases.
Offenses against the administration of justice are specific types of violations
of the law. Sections 340 to 352the of the Criminal Procedural Code specifically
deal with offenses against the administration of justice.
There are various theories as to why be there a need for the rise of the
administration of justice. But a good explanation would be to maintain rights
within a political community by a state using physical force. The three simple
key statements to define the administration of justice would be; maintenance of
rights, politically organized society, and physical force of state backed up by
In earlier times when people faced any kind of issues in the justice system,
they called their elders to solve their problems. The elders were well respected
and highly looked upon. In the same way, today when people face issues and
cannot do justice by themselves, they turn to the state who has established the
justice system, and as stated, in order to maintain rights, there came a rise in
the administration of justice.
Administration of justice provides certainty to people that make sure that
people know that their rights are safe and when violated, they can turn to the
state for justice. For example, when a murder is committed, people are certain
that there is a system that will punish the offender under the law, defined
under Indian Penal Code.
Secondly, it brings predictability. When a crime is committed people already
know that they have a system backing their rights, but they will also be able to
predict what punishment will be provided to the culprit for his specific crime.
The administration of justice also provides a guarantee of rights and wisdom to
provide justice to the people.
But the drawback of the administration of justice is that it is very rigid in
nature. Laws are made in a certain way and changing them takes a session itself.
When it comes to the procedural part of the administration of justice, it is a
quite lengthy process and too formalistic. The formalities hold too much
importance and sometimes consume a whole lot of time. It is quite technical, one
must abide by all the procedures in order to file a complaint or attain justice.
It is said that 'sometimes it becomes a dream to attain justice' so one can
imagine the amount of time and strength it takes to go through each a very step
to gain justice.
There are two types of justice, Civil and Criminal. This means there are two
types of wrongs, civil wrongs, and criminal wrongs. Criminal wrongs are Public
wrongs while civil wrongs are private wrongs.
- Civil justice:
civil laws refer to laws relating to disputes between individuals,
organizations, or both. The main object of the administration of civil
justice is to give relief by way of compensation or other relief to the
injured party. The rights executed by civil proceedings are of two
kinds-Primary rights and Sanctioning rights. In civil cases plaintiff files
a suit in front of relevant courts.
- Criminal Justice:
criminal laws are a set of rules and regulations that provides conduct of
human in society and also defines punishments. The administration of
criminal justice is to discipline the lawbreaker. discipline may be
described as the infliction by State Authority, of a consequence typically
regarded as a wrong (imprisonment or death) on an individual set up to be
fairly shamefaced of a crime. In such cases, the suit is instated by the
Theories Of Punishments
- Preventive theory:
this theory states that by punishing a wrongdoer under the law, the state is
preventing a person from repeating an offense, preventive punishments can be
given in a number of ways. For example, by detention or by long-term
Kant has criticized this theory by saying that this theory treats the
wrongdoer as an object (by giving them long-term imprisonment), which will
lead the person's state of mind to become more aggressive or criminal and
there is a possibility that the person might learn to behave more
aggressively by being in contact with other offenders in the prison.
- Deterrent theory:
this theory says that the punishment should be given in a such manner that
it creates terror in the minds of not just the offender but the people
themselves so that the offender does not repeat the offense again and the
people will not think of doing such thing either. For example, in some
countries, the punishment for committing rape is the execution of the
offender by public stoning.
But this theory is strongly criticized by Kenny by saying that the theory
will only be successful when the offender realizes that he has done an
offense. Also by Holmes, this theory is immoral, as it gives o measure to
- Retributive theory:
this theory basically speaks about taking revenge. According to this theory,
when punishment is given to the wrongdoer, it should be in such a way that
it satisfies the victim party, in a way that they say 'an eye for an eye, or
an answer to a brick thrown is by throwing back a stone'.
This theory is criticized by stating that the theory is based on taking
revenge and thus is morally and ethically wrong. 'Tooth for a tooth and an
eye for an eye' cannot be used in today's world, it is practically
- Reformative theory:
this theory states that killing cannot be a cure. An offense is committed
under the influence of motive on the character of the accused. Therefore, a
person's motive can be changed and the crime can be prevented, by finding
and eliminating the weakness of the accused. This theory is applied
liberally in India in the form of the release of first-time offenders on
probation for good conduct. But this theory fails in cases where certain
offenders are not curable.
- Expiatory theory:
According to this theory, when an offender is convicted by law and has
served his imprisonment, his offense is expiatory and he becomes pure and
goes to heaven as other people go. But this theory is criticized by stating
that is outdated and does not fall under the domain of law.
Sections Dealing With Offences Against The Administration Of Justice Under The Code Of Criminal Procedure
Section 340: Procedure in cases mentioned under section 195
Section 341: Appeal:
- When an application is filed before a court by a public servant or
affected, a preliminary inquiry must be made before appearing inside the
court, if the court is of the opinion that it's miles expedient in nature
for the management of justice. Offenses are prescribed under section 195(1)
(b) If the court feels that an incorrect or fabricated record has been
produced, public order is harmed or the complaints had been hampered with
the aid of producing fake evidence.
The court, after sporting out the initial inquiry, can document a locating
on that factor; could make a complaint thereof if the court is of the
opinion that the offense has been devoted for which the utility is filed;
deliver the case to the Justice of the Peace having first elegance
jurisdiction, everywhere the jurisdiction of the offense lies (the place
wherein the offense became dedicated); can take enough protection from the
accused for the reason of the appearance of the accused and might ship the
accused below the custody of the concerned magistrate; any person may be
positive to seem in court docket and supply pieces of evidence.
- All of the powers as given in sub-clause 1 of section 340 of the Code
with recognition to offense, wherein the court docket has neither made a
grievance below Section 34(1) nor rejected the utility for making this sort
of grievance, might be exercised by means of the court docket to which the
preceding court is subordinate as constant with that means of Section 195(4)
of the CrPC.
- And (4) the criticism made underneath Section 340(1) of CrPC is to be
signed through the officer appointed by the immoderate court wherein the
case seems. In exceptional instances, the presiding officer of the court or
any officer legal in the manner of the court can signal criticism. The court
can be any court, civil, or tribunal, in keeping with Section 195 of the
- Any person on whose operation any Court other than a High Court has
refused to make a complaint under sub-section 1) or sub-section (2) of
section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by a similar
Court, may appeal to the Court to which similar former Court is inferior
within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195, and the Superior Court
may therefore, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the pullout of
the complaint, or, as the case may be, making of the complaint which similar
former Court might have made under section 340, and if it makes a similar
complaint, the vittles of that section shall apply consequently.
- An order under this section, and subject to any similar order, an order
under section 340, shall be final, and shall not be subject to
Section 342: Power to order costs.
Any Court dealing with an application made to it for filing a complaint under
section 340 or an appeal under section 341, shall have the power to make such
order as to costs as may be just.
Section 343: The procedure of Magistrate taking cognizance.
Section 344: Summary procedure for trial for giving false substantiation.
- A Magistrate to whom a complaint is made under section 340 or section
341 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter XV, do, as far as
may be, to deal with the case as if it were introduced on a police report.
- Where it's brought to the notice of a similar Magistrate, or of any
other Magistrate to whom the case may have been transferred, that an appeal
is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of
which the matter has arisen, he may, if he thinks fit, at any stage, recess
the hail of the case until a similar appeal is decided.
Section 345: Procedure in certain cases of disdain.
- If at the time of delivery of any judgment or final order disposing of
any judicial proceeding, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class
expresses an opinion to the effect that any substantiation appearing in a
similar proceeding had deliberately or willfully given false substantiation
or had fabricated false substantiation with the intention that similar
substantiation should be used in the similar proceeding, it or he may, if
satisfied that it's necessary and advisable in the interest of justice that
the substantiation should be tried pithily for giving or fabricating, as the
case may be, false substantiation, take cognizance of the offense and may,
after giving the lawbreaker a reasonable occasion of showing cause why he
shouldn't be penalized for a similar offense, try similar lawbreaker pithily
and doom him to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or
to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
- In every similar case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be
practicable, the procedure specified for summary trials.
- Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Court to make a
complaint under section 340 for the offense, which it doesn't choose to do
under this section.
- Where, after any action is initiated under sub-section (1), it's made to
appear to the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class that an
appeal or an operation for modification has been preferred or filed against
the judgment or order in which the opinion appertained to in that
sub-section has been expressed, it or he shall stay farther proceedings of
the trial until the disposal of the appeal or the operation for
modification, as the case may be, and therefore the farther proceedings of
the trial shall abide by the results of the appeal or operation for
346. Procedure where Court considers, that case shouldn't be dealt with under
- When any similar offenses are described in Section 175, section 178,
section 179, section 180, or Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code( 45 of
1860), is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Felonious, or
Revenue Court, the Court may beget the lawbreaker to be detained in
guardianship and may, at any time before the rising of the Court on the same
day, take cognizance of the offense and, after giving the lawbreaker a
reasonable occasion of showing cause why he shouldn't be penalized under
this section, judgment the lawbreaker to fine not exceeding two hundred
rupees, and, in dereliction of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one month, unless similar fine be sooner paid.
- In every similar case the Court shall record the data constituting the
offense, with the statement (if any) made by the lawbreaker, as well as the
finding and judgment.
- If the offense is under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding
in which the Court intruded or disrespected was sitting, and the nature of
the interruption or personality.
Section 347: When Registrar or Sub-Registrar to be deemed a Civil Court.
- If the Court, in any case, considers that a person indicted of any of
the offenses appertained to in section 345 and committed in its view or
presence should be locked else than in dereliction of payment of fine, or
that a fine exceeding two hundred rupees should be assessed upon him, or
similar Court is for any other reason of opinion that the case shouldn't be
disposed of under section 345, similar Court, after recording the data
constituting the offense and the statement of the indicted as hereinbefore
handed, may further the case to a Magistrate having governance to try the
same and may bear security to be given for the appearance of the similar
person before similar Magistrate, or if sufficient security isn't given
shall further similar person in guardianship to similar Magistrate.
- The Magistrate to whom any case is encouraged under this section shall
do to deal with, as far as may be, as if it were introduced on a police
When the State Government so directs, any Registrar or any Sub-Registrar
appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), shall be deemed to be a
Civil Court within the meaning of sections 345 and 346.
Section 348: Discharge of lawbreaker on submission of reason.
When any Court has under section 345 arbitrated a lawbreaker to discipline or
has under section 346 encouraged him to a Magistrate for trial, for refusing or
forgetting to do anything which he was lawfully needed to do or for any
purposeful personality or interruption, the Court may, in its discretion,
discharge the lawbreaker or remit the discipline on his submission to the order
or importunity of similar Court, or on reason being made to its satisfaction.
Section 349: Imprisonment or commitment of a person refusing to answer or
produce a document.
If any witness or person called to produce a document or thing before a Criminal
Court refuses to answer such questions as are put to him or to produce any
document or thing in his possession or power which the Court requires him to
produce, and does not, after a reasonable opportunity has been, given, to him so
to do, offer any reasonable excuse for such refusal, such Court may, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, sentence him to simple imprisonment, or by warrant
under the hand of the Presiding Magistrate or Judge commit him to the custody of
an officer of the Court for any term not exceeding seven days, unless, in the
meantime, such person consents to be examined and to answer, or to produce the
document or thing and in the event of his persisting in his refusal, he may be
dealt with according to the provisions of section 345 or section 346.
350: Summary procedure for punishment for non-attendance by a witness in
obedience to the summons.
Section 351: Appeals from convictions under sections 344, 345, 349, and 350.
- If any witness being summoned to appear before a Criminal Court is
legally bound to appear at a certain place and time in obedience to the
summons and without just excuse neglects or refuses to attend at that place
or time or departs from the place where he has to attend before the time at
which it is lawful for him to depart, and the Court before which the witness
is to appear is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice
that such a witness should be tried summarily, the Court may take cognizance
of the offense and after giving the offender an opportunity of showing cause
why he should not be punished under this section, sentence him to fine not
exceeding one hundred rupees.
- In every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be
practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials.
Section 352: Certain Judges and Magistrates are not to try certain offenses
when committed before themselves.
- Any person sentenced by any Court other than a High Court under section
344, section 345, section 349, or section 350 may, notwithstanding anything
contained in this Code appeal to the Court to which decrees or orders made
in such Court are ordinarily appealable.
- The provisions of Chapter XXIX shall, so far as they are applicable,
apply to appeals under this section, and the Appellate Court may alter or
reverse the finding, or reduce or reverse the sentence appealed against.
- An appeal from such conviction by a Court of Small Causes shall lie to
the Court of Session for the session's division within which such Court is
- An appeal from such conviction by any Registrar or Sub-Registrar deemed
to be a Civil Court by virtue of a direction issued under section 347 shall
lie to the Court of Session for the session's division within which the
office of such Registrar or Sub-Registrar is situated.
Except as provided in sections 344, 345, 349, and 350, no Judge of a Criminal
Court (other than a Judge of a High Court) or Magistrate shall try any person
for any offense referred to in section 195, when such an offense is committed
before himself or in contempt of his authority or is brought under his notice as
such Judge or Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceeding.
- Pritish v. State of Maharashtra (2001)
A bench of Justices K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan, and Y.K. Sabharwal of the
Supreme Court of India upheld that the scheme of Sections 340 to 344 of the
Code comprises an in-built safety for the individuals sought to be proceeded
against, by obliging the court to afford an opportunity of being heard to
them, in the case of Pritish V. State of Maharashtra (2001). The Apex Court
observed that under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
Court is not bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry. If the Court wishes to
do so then, a finding should be made which would showcase that in the
interest of justice, a preliminary inquiry is required in the case for the
concerning offense. In the latter case, the purpose of such an inquiry is
not to conclude whether the accused is guilty or innocent, instead, it is
only to decide whether the inquiry is expedient in the interest of
- Jadu Nandan Singh Vs Emperor, 1910
The Calcutta High Court in this case stressed the significance of a
conservative approach that needs to be considered while setting the lawless
law in stir. Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has laid
down the procedure for cases that are mentioned under Section 195 of the
Code, and therefore this Section sets the lawless law in stir with respect
to the offenses that affect justice administration.
- Murray & Company vs. Ashok Kumar Newatia & Ors.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the practice of having false
validation incorporated in an affidavit filed before a court should always
be disapproved and we do now record the same. The fact that the defendant
has affirmed a false affidavit before this court is rather serious and
thereby rendered himself shamefaced of misprision of this court as noticed
- Baban Singh and Anr. Vs Jagdish Singh & Ors.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that swearing is false when a bone is
bound by a pledge to state the verity because an affidavit is a declaration
made under a pledge. The description of the offense of giving false
validation thus applies to the affidavits.
- Dhananjay Sharma Vs State Of Haryana and Ors, 1994
In this case, the Supreme Court held we're of the opinion that he is now
repentant but he can't be allowed to go scot-free for the falsehood indulged
into by him in this Court and for his attempt to poison the aqueduct of
justice. Still, Imprisonment for a period of two months for committing
misprision of court by filing false affidavits denying the allegations made
in the writ supplication and the affidavit.
- Law-simple and pure by Dr. Vaishali Golivadekar, criminal jurisprudence-
Administration of Justice, necessity of Administration of Justice
- Mittal law lectures, administration of justice and theories of
- Criminal manual (criminal majors acts), professionals publication, p.no.
- Criminal manual (criminal majors acts), professionals publication, p.no.
- Blog.ipleaders.in: offences against administration of justice, article
by Oishika Banerjee
Please Drop Your Comments