Delhi District Court
Dr. Ramesh Nirmal vs The High Court Of Delhi on 16 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. POONAM CHAUDHRY, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
Crl. Rev. No. : 13/15
Unique Case ID : 02401R0349962015
Dr. Ramesh Nirmal
S/o. Late Manmal Jain,
8688, Khadilkar Road,
Mumbai 400004. ........... Petitioner/Revisionist
Vs.
The High Court of Delhi
Through Registrar General,
Delhi High Court,
Sher Shah Marg,
New Delhi. .......... Respondent
Date of Institution 08.07.2015
Judgment reserved on 06.11.2015
Judgment delivered on 16.11.2015
ORDER
1. By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the order of Ld. CMM, dt. 24.03.2015, whereby the charges were framed against the petitioner/accused u/s. 193/196/199 IPC on a Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 1 complaint filed by the respondent / Registrar High Court of Delhi u/s. 340 Cr.PC.
2. It is alleged that petitioner had filed a writ petition (C) bearing no. 13679/2009 titled Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. Union of India & Others for directions to respondent no. 2 (Rastriya Sanskrit Sansathan) to honour the sanction order whereby financial assistance was granted to petitioner for publication of 2000 copies of his book "Kaalijayee Ujjaynee". Along with the petition, the petitioner had produced letters dated 23.01.87 and 21.12.87 as precedent. However, the said letters were found to be tampered documents by the Human Resource Development Ministry. It is further alleged that the writ petition was dismissed as Hon'ble High Court was of the view that no case for grant of relief was made out and while dismissing the writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused.
3. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner/accused for framing of charge under section 196 and 199 IPC. It is alleged that as per the version of the respondent the petitioner/accused had produced false and fabricated documents along with the writ petition and had Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 2 filed a false affidavit. It is submitted that in view of the submissions made in the complaint the act of the petitioner/accused were covered u/s. 191/192 IPC punishable U/s 193 IPC.
4. It is further alleged that Section 196 IPC would apply in case a person who uses or attempts to uses as true or genuine evidence which he knows to be false and fabricated. This section stipulates that such a person would be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence. Section 196 IPC prescribs punishment for an abettor and would not apply to a person who had sworn a false affidavit.
5. It is further averred that Section 199 IPC,was also not attracted as the act attributed to the petitioner/accused were covered and punishable u/s. 193 PC. Section 199 IPC applied to statements made voluntarily. Thus petitioner as verified his pleading in the writ petition his act would fall U/s 193 IPC, as per the allegation made in the complaint. It is further stated that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as only ingredients of offence punishable u/s. 193 IPC are made. The charges u/s. 196/199 IPC are misconceived and not sustainable. In support of the said contention reliance is placed upon "Baban Singh & another Vs. Jagdish Singh & another, AIR Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 3 1967, Supreme Court 68, wherein it has been held as under:
"Criminal P.C. (1898), Ss. 479A and 476 - False affidavit sworn by witness in proceeding before Court Offence would fall under Ss. 191 and 192 rather than under S.199, Penal Code - For purpose of starting prosecution procedure under S. 479A, Criminal P. C. must be followed - S. 476, Criminal P. C. cannot be invoked because of subs (6) of S. 476A, Criminal P. C. Criminal Misc. Case No. 366 of 1956, dated 3.10.1963 (Pat), Reversed (Paras 7, 8)"
"The difference between Ss. 191 and 199 is this: Section 191 deals with statements and declarations falsely made by a person legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth. Section 199 deals with statements and declarations made voluntarily provided they are capable of being used as evidence and which the court is bound to receive as evidence."
"Section 199 deals with a declaration and does not state that the declaration must be on oath. The only condition necessary is that the declaration must be capable of being used as evidence and which any Court of justice or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence. Section 191 deals with evidence on oath and S. Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 4 192 with fabricating false evidence. If we consider this matter from the standpoint of S. 191, Indian Penal Code the offence is constituted by swearing falsely when one is bound by oath to state the truth because an affidavit is a declaration made under an oath. The definition of the offence of giving false evidence thus applies to the affidavits. "In this way their offence came within the words of Ss. 191/192 rather than S. 199 of the Indian Penal Code".
6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ld. Addl. PP.
7. Section 191, 192, 193, 196, 199 IPC are as follows :
"191. Giving false evidence. Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence."
Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 5
192. Fabricating false evidence. Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or [makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement], intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said "to fabricate false evidence".
"193. Punishment for false evidence. Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 6 fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"196. Using evidence known to be false. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence."
"199. False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence. Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence."
Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 7
8. The facts giving rise to the revision petition are that a criminal complaint was filed u/s. 340 Cr.PC r/w Section 195 Cr.PC by the respondent against the petitioner/accused in compliance of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 03.02.11 passed in writ petition no. 13679/2009 as it was revealed that petitioner had produced documents with the Writ Petition which did not exist on the official record of the office of Prime Minister Office. The relevant portion of the order dt. 3.2.2011 is as under :
"This court is satisfied prima facie that offences under sections 191, 192 and 196 IPC punishable under section 193 IPC have been committed by the petitioner in relation to these proceedings. In terms of section 340(i) Cr.PC read with section 195(1) (b) (i), this court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made against into the above offences for which a written complaint should be made to the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner. The Registrar General is hereby directed to draw up and make complaint in the above terms and send it to appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate within four weeks. The said complaint will be accompanied by a complete certified copy of the entire file, and the sealed cover containing the documents placed therein Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 8 pursuant to the order dated 22nd July 2010 of this court. The above complaint and documents will be personally delivered by a special messenger to the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and an appropriate acknowledgment obtained and kept in the records".
9. The power of revision extends to seeing the correctness of the orders passed and also to the regularity of proceedings of the inferior court. Thus, the revisional jurisdiction is limited and is only for the satisfaction as to the correctness, legality of the order of the inferior court. The revisional court can interfere with the order of the inferior court only if suffers from any infirmity or illegality but cannot interfere or substitute its own findings if the findings of the inferior court are reasonable and proper as the revisional court is not to act as an Appellate Court. It is only in glaring circumstances of injustice resulting from violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court that revisional court is empowered to set aside the order of inferior court.
10. By the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court framed charges U/s 193/196/199 IPC against the petitioner/accused as it found sufficient material on record. The contentions of petitioner/accused that the allegation made in the complaint disclose commission of Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 9 offences U/s 191, 192 punishable U/s 193 IPC only are to be considered during the trial. At the stage of framing of charge, the court has to be satisfied that prima facie there is sufficient material to frame charge. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court had framed the charge after being satisfied that prima facie case had been made out against the petitioner/accused U/s 193/ 196/199 IPC.
11. As regards the framing of charge in a criminal case, it has been held in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander 2012 (9) SCC 460 as under: "19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to rial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage."
12. Thus, as the Ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion, the revisional court will not substitute its own findings or examine the case on merits in order to find out whether allegations in the complaint would ultimately end in conviction.
Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 10
13. For the forgoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order of Ld. Trial Court which calls for interference. The revision is dismissed.
14. A copy of the order be sent to Ld. Trial Court. TCR be sent back. The Revision file be consigned to the recordroom. Announced in the open court on this 16th day of November, 2015 (Poonam Chaudhry) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 13/15 Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. The High Court of Delhi 11