Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Petition Under Section 151 Cpc Praying ... vs $ The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 May, 2026
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
1
APHC010048252021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3566]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
I.A.No.02 of 2025
in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 33/2021
Between:
1. SHAIK SALEEM, S/O MASTANVALI @ MABUSUBHANI@MABULA
AGED 21 YEARS, R/O. SATHULURU VILLAGE, NADENDLA MANDAL,
GUNTUR DISTRICT
...APELLANT
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Amaravathi.
...RESPODENT
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
Pleased to call for a report from the Juvenile justice Board of Guntur with
regard to the age of the Petitioner as on 11.12.2018 (date of offence),
pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2021 preferred against the
Judgment dt. 04.01.2021 passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur on
2
the file of Special Court for speedy trial of offences under protection of
children from offences Act, Guntur in Sessions Case No. 330/2019, and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. A. SWARUPA REDDY
2. -
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
And
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
I.A.No.02 of 2025
in
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.33 of 2021
ORDER:(Per Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) Introductory:
1. One Shaik Saleem - sole accused in S.C. No.330 of 2019 on the file of Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act: Guntur, preferred the appeal vide CRLA No.33 of 2021, questioning the conviction and sentence, dated 04.01.2021 passed in the said Sessions Case. He was convicted for the offences under Section 376AB of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act) and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The appellant has filed the present application in I.A.No.2 of 4 2025 with a prayer to call for a report from the Juvenile Justice Board, Guntur with regard to his age as on 11.12.2018 (the date of offence).
Scope of present application and backdrop:-
2. The case against the appellant is that, he has committed rape on a minor girl aged 6 years.
3. Petitioner/applicant is contending that his date of birth is 28.06.2001 as per the birth Certificate issued by the Government General Hospital, Guntur on 02.02.2024. Therefore, as on the date of the offence i.e., on 11.12.2018, his age is 17years-5 months-14 days. Hence, he shall be considered as juvenile.
4. Learned Trial Judge relied on the Date of Birth Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Z.P. High School, Satuluru, wherein his date of birth is shown as 22.9.2000. Since the petitioner/appellant sought for report from the Juvenile Justice Board with regard to his age, this Court by orders dated 02.12.2025 called for a report from the concerned Juvenile Justice Board.
Report:-
5. Report is received from the Juvenile Justice Board through concerned Principal District Judge, Guntur under a letter Dis.No.139, 02.03.2026.
6. [i] As per the report, the Juvenile Justice Board provided opportunity to the parents of the accused and the Station House Officer, Nadendla Police 5 Station to produce relevant record. On 22-10-2025, the petitioner accused was produced from Central Prison, Nellore before the Board. Petitioner relied on the Date of Birth Certificate, dated 02.02.2024 issued by the Government General Hospital, Guntur. The Juvenile Justice Board has issued notice to the Registrar, Birth and Deaths, Government General Hospital, Guntur to appear along with relevant record pertaining to the date of birth certificate relied. Accordingly, on 29.12.2025 Dr.B.Venkateswara Rao, Civil Surgeon, Administrator at Government General Hospital, Guntur appeared before the Juvenile Justice Board and his statement was recorded. As per his statement, the birth Certificate produced by the parents of the accused was not issued by the Government General Hospital, Guntur and it is a fake document. The Civil Registration System of Government General Hospital, Guntur used to issue birth certificates from 01.05.2016. On verification of the birth Certificate relied on by the petitioner, it is found that said document was not issued by the Government General Hospital, Guntur. The registration number of the Hospital (institutional code) is D2024:28-90111, but in the date of birth Certificate of Sk.Saleem, it was mentioned as 10-90347-002419, which is not tallied with the institutional Code, hence, it is a fake one. He has further stated that on verification of hospital record, it was found that no birth Certificate was issued in favor of SK. Saleem on 02.02.2024.
[ii] Upon considering the material, the Board found that, the alleged Certificate submitted by the parents of SK. Saleem is not genuine. The Board 6 has given further opportunity to the parents of the accused to submit any other proof, but no other proof was submitted. Juvenile Justice Board found that, he is an adult as on the date of offence, in view of the document, the study Certificate of SK.Saleem/accused, his date of birth is 22.09.2000.
7. Now the points that arise for determination in this application are -
1) Whether the applicant/petitioner can be considered as a Juvenile for the purpose of present proceedings?
2) What is the accountability of the applicant/ petitioner and persons concerned for producing fake document?
Pont No.1:-
8. [i] It is relevant to note that, as per Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice Act, on a plea of juvenility, an inquiry as to determination of the age of the person shall be made and the inquiry can be made by the Board. When the Board makes an inquiry and determines the age, the same shall be presumed to be the correct age as per Section 94, which reads as follows:-
" 94. Presumption and determination of age.
(1)Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.7
(2)In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -
(i)the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii)the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii)and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
(3)The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person."
9. In view of the above provision of law and the report submitted by the Juvenile Justice Board, this Court finds that the petitioner/appellant is not a juvenile as on the date of the offence, the case can be proceeded as if he is an adult. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. Point No.2:-
10. [i] As per the Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Z.P. High School with reference to admission number, the date of birth of the petitioner is 22-9-2000.
8
[ii] As per the birth certificate (found to be fake one) relied on by the petitioner, the date of birth is 28-6-2001.
[iii] It is further surprising to note that, as per the notarized affidavit, the petitioner/accused is having an Aadhar card, as per which his date of birth is 01.01.2000. Since the date of birth mentioned in Aadhar card makes the claim of the petitioner that he is minor is not acceptable, it appears that the above mentioned fake certificate is produced.
11. [i] This Court finds it proper and important to note the following:-
(1) Prima facie it is clear that, a false document is intentionally used as if a genuine one, knowing that it is a fabricated one, in the judicial process;
(2) A statement is made under a notarized affidavit by relying on fake document, which amounts to a false statement, (3) Using a fake document in judicial proceedings is an offence, covered under Chapter XIV of BNS (Chapter XI of Indian Penal Code). The persons, who aided in such falsification are also liable;
[ii]. Production of fake certificate cannot be ignored. [iii] In the present case, said fabrication and production of fake certificate has taken place, prior to the document reaching the Court. 9
[iv] Now, whether the procedure contemplated under Section 379 of BNSS (Section 340 Crpc), shall be followed in view of Section 215 of BNSS (Section 195 Cr.P.C.), in relation to any offence punishable under the provisions of BNSS vide 229 to 233, 236, 237, 242 to 248 and 267, (vide Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 IPC), require answer.
[a] As per section 215 BNSS (195 (1) Crpc) no Court shall take cognizance, of any said offences except on the complaint in writing of that Court Or by the Officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf Or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. For which preliminary inquiry in terms of Section 379 BNSS (340 Crpc) is contemplated.
[b] Further question is whether the inquiry in terms of (Section 340Crpc) 379 BNSS and compliance of Section 215 BNSS (195(1) (b) Cr.P.C.) is necessary in the context where fabrication has taken place in respect of the document viz., fake Date of Birth Certificate, before it reached the Court.
[c] In the above context, this Court finds it proper to refer the observations of the Full Bench (5 judges) of the Honourable Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 195 (1) (b) and Section 340 Crpc and the crucial question - the bar under Section 195 Crpc, as to taking cognizance whether would apply in respect of an offence committed where forgery of a 1 (2005) 4 SCC 370 10 document has taken place before a document has produced in a Court. To resolve the conflicting opinions in between the decisions passed in Singh v. Balbir Singh [(1996) 3 SCC 533 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 521] and Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar [(1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] (both rendered by 3 judges Bench ), the matter was placed before Full Bench of Five Judges and the controversy and conflicting views are narrated in para numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment which reads as follows :-
"4. Sub-section (1) of Section 195 CrPC, which according to the appellants, creates a bar in taking cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondents, reads as under:
―195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.--(1) No court shall take cognizance--
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Penal Code, 1860, or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Penal Code, 1860, namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, or
(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), 11 except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate.‖
5. The principal controversy revolves round the interpretation of the expression ―when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court‖ occurring in clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 CrPC. The appellants place reliance on the following observations made in para 10 of the Report in Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh [(1996) 3 SCC 533 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 521] : (SCC p. 538) ―10. It would thus be clear that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the foundation for forgery, if produced before the court or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) gets attracted and the criminal court is prohibited from taking cognizance of offence unless a complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed under Section 340 of the Code by or on behalf of the court. The object thereby is to preserve purity of the administration of justice and to allow the parties to adduce evidence in proof of certain documents without being compelled or intimidated to proceed with the judicial process. The bar of Section 195 is to take cognizance of the offences covered thereunder.‖ to contend that once the document is produced or given in evidence in court, the taking of cognizance on the basis of private complaint is completely barred.
6. In Sachida Nand Singh [(1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] after analysis of the relevant provisions and noticing a number of earlier decisions (but not Surjit Singh [(1996) 3 SCC 533 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 521] ), the Court recorded its conclusions in paras 11, 12 and 23 which are being reproduced below: (SCC pp. 499 & 501) ―11. The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court. In other words, 12 the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
12. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the court and long before its production in the court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the court records.
***
23. The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court.‖ This extract is taken from Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 531 at page 379
7. On a plain reading clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 is capable of two interpretations. One possible interpretation is that when an offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 IPC is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document which is subsequently produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, a complaint by the court would be necessary. The other possible interpretation is that when a document has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court and thereafter an offence described as aforesaid is committed in respect thereof, a complaint by the court would be necessary. On this interpretation if the offence as described in the section is committed prior to production or giving in evidence of the document in court, no complaint by court would be necessary and a private complaint would be maintainable. The question which requires consideration is which of the two interpretations should be accepted having regard to the scheme of the Act and object sought to be achieved.‖ [d] The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the same judgment, after addressing and analyzing the provisions of sections 195, 340 and 341 Crpc, in para 33 of the judgment, observed as follows: 13
"33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh [(1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
[e] In view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah's case (cited Supra), this Court finds that there is no necessity to conduct any inquiry in terms of 379 BNSS, (Section 340 Crpc) and compliance of Section 215 BNSS (195(1) (b) Cr.P.C.).
[v] Further, we find that the conduct of producing a fake document in a judicial process cannot be ignored.
[vi] It is prima facie clear that the accused has used a fake document in the judicial process. Therefore, it is proper to direct the Registry to send the relevant material, i.e., (1) the Date of Birth Certificate dated 2.2.2024 relied upon by the Petitioner, (2) the Report of the Juvenile Justice Board, and (3) a copy of the present orders, to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, for a proper investigation by the concerned Police Station and appropriate prosecution against all those involved in the fabrication of the Date of Birth Certificate, and to inform the action-taken report to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh within a period of six months. The material 14 papers shall be sent with a proper report/complaint, duly signed by a proper Officer of this Court.
12. Hence, we find it expedient and necessary, in the interest of justice, to direct appropriate prosecution against the petitioner and all concerned for producing a fake document in a judicial proceeding. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
13. For the aforestated reasons, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 is disposed of, as follows:
(1) For the purpose of further proceedings in this appeal, in view of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the report of the Juvenile Justice Board, the petitioner/accused is considered as an adult and his prayer for recognizing him as juvenile is rejected.
(2) The material papers i.e., 1) Date of Birth Certificate dated 2.2.2024 relied on by the Petitioner, 2) Report of Juvenile Justice Board, and 3) Copy of the present orders, shall be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur for taking appropriate legal action.
(3) The concerned Police shall initiate appropriate prosecution, in accordance with law, against all the persons involved in the fabrication of the Date of Birth Certificate. The competent Court shall 15 adjudicate the matter independently, on merits, and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
(4) The report as to the action taken shall be placed by the Superintendent of Police, Guntur before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P. within a period of Six (06) months.
________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date: 01.05.2026 Pnr 16 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA (Per Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) I.A.No.02 of 2025 in CRIMINAL APPEAL No.33 of 2021 Date: 01.05.2026 17 Pnr * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA I.A.No.02 of 2025 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 33/2021 % 01.05.2026 # Shaik Saleem, s/o Mastanvali @ Mabusubhani @Mabula, Aged 21 years, R/o. Sathuluru village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur district .... Petitioner/ Appellant Versus $ The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi.
.... Respondent/s
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A. SWARUPA REDDY
! Counsel for the Respondents : Public Prosecutor (A.P.)
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
18
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA I.A.No.02 of 2025 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 33/2021 # Shaik Saleem, s/o Mastanvali @ Mabusubhani @Mabula, Aged 21 years, R/o. Sathuluru village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur district .... Petitioner/ Appellant Versus $ The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi.
.... Respondent/s
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 01.05.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ? Yes/No ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA