I have considered your query regarding the applicability of Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in proceedings before revenue authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, particularly before the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Director of Land Records, Deputy Director of Land Records and Regional Joint Director of Land Records.
Your understanding is broadly correct, however certain legal distinctions are important. Section 379 BNSS substantially relates to situations involving false evidence, false affidavits, fabricated documents or offences affecting administration of justice committed during judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The central issue therefore is whether the concerned authority can be treated as a “Court” for the limited purpose of initiating such proceedings.
Proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are generally regarded as quasi-judicial proceedings and for certain statutory purposes these authorities are treated akin to revenue courts. Therefore, where a party intentionally files false affidavits, fabricated records, forged revenue extracts or knowingly makes false statements material to the proceedings, the affected party may move an application requesting initiation of proceedings under the relevant provisions relating to false evidence and fabricated documents.
However, such prosecution is not automatic merely because one party alleges falsity against the other. The concerned authority must first independently examine whether a deliberate and material falsehood appears to have been committed and whether prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. Mere incorrect statements, weak claims, disputed interpretations or unsuccessful arguments do not by themselves justify criminal prosecution.
In practical terms, the respondent may file a detailed application before the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner specifically identifying the false statements, false affidavit portions, fabricated records or suppression of material facts relied upon by the appellant. The application should clearly demonstrate, through documentary evidence, that the statements are knowingly false and materially affect adjudication of the case. The authority may then examine the record and hear the parties if required.
If the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that a prima facie case exists and that intentional falsehood affecting judicial administration has occurred, the authority may record reasons and make a complaint or reference to the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Magistrate thereafter proceeds in accordance with criminal procedure law. The revenue authority itself ordinarily does not conduct the criminal trial but performs the preliminary satisfaction process before forwarding the matter to the competent criminal court.
As regards the Assistant Director of Land Records, Deputy Director of Land Records and Regional Joint Director of Land Records, applicability depends upon the precise nature of proceedings being conducted by them. If they are acting purely in administrative or technical capacity, proceedings of this nature may not ordinarily arise. However, if they are exercising statutory adjudicatory powers, recording evidence or entertaining sworn affidavits in quasi-judicial proceedings, then in appropriate circumstances similar principles may apply.
It is also important to proceed cautiously because courts and quasi-judicial authorities generally discourage filing of perjury-type applications merely as pressure tactics during litigation. Therefore, such application should ideally be pursued only where the falsity is clear, deliberate, supported by official records and materially connected to the issues under adjudication.
In conclusion, proceedings under provisions akin to BNSS 379 may be invoked before revenue or quasi-judicial authorities in Karnataka where intentional false affidavits or fabricated documents are filed in judicial proceedings. If the concerned authority is satisfied that prosecution is warranted in the interests of justice, it may forward or file a complaint before the competent Magistrate, who thereafter conducts proceedings in accordance with law.
