Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On 14-12-1992 one K.G. Basavarajappa and his wife Dakshayaniyamma were found dead in their house situated at 4th Cross, Jyothirao Beedi, Vidyanagar, Shimoga. Initial investigation disclosed that it is a case of suicide. Therefore, a case "under UDRR No. 33 of 92 read with Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered. Later on a complaint dated 31-3-1993 was lodged that the couple had died a homicidal death. A case was registered by Kote Police in Crime No. 69 of 1993 for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. Subsequently, investigation was taken over by Corps of Detectives, Bangalore. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against one Shivalinga Murthy as A-l and the petitioners herein as A-2 and A-3. A-1 was charged for offences of murder, forgery, forgery of valuable security and forgery for cheating, criminal conspiracy and causing disappearance punishable under Sections 302, 465, 467, 468, 120(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioners are charged for offences of Forgery, forgery of valuable security, forgery for cheating, using as genuine a forged document, criminal conspiracy and causing disappearance punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

16. In Dharm Chand v. The State of Rajasthan, 1985 (2) Crimes 354, the Court held that even if the document is alleged to have been forged before the commencement of the proceedings in the Court, the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) shall apply if the document has already been filed in a Court before the cognizance of an offence referred to in the section is taken by the Criminal Court.

17. In Nateshan v. State of Karnataka, 1978 Cri LJ 1642, the appellant was an employee of Air Force working at H.A.L., Bangalore. He presented an application for medical advance of R$. 500/- for the treatment of his wife. The advance was sanctioned and the money was ordered to be paid in two instalments of Rs. 250/- each. After receiving one instalment, the appellant filed the medical reimbursement application forRs. 293.40 enclosing the prescription chits, caslibills etc. On an investigation, it is revealed that the, appellant has filed a false application enclosing forged prescription chits, cash bills etc. One of the defence taken by the appellant was that in view of the amendment made to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. 1973 by deletion of the words "by a party to any proceedings in any Court", a prosecution for the offence of forgery under Section 471 IPC in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in Court being the subject matter of the prosecution, cannot be taken cognizance by the Court unless a complaint in writing is filed by that Court. The learned single Judge, Kudoor, J., as he then was, held :-

"No complaint in writing by the Court for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 471 I.P.C. isvnecessary in a prosecution for the offence of forgery under Section 471 I.P.C. committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in Court which is the very subject matter of the prosecution."

18. In Legal Remembrancer v. Haridas Mundhra, AIR 1976 SC 2225: (1976 Cri LJ 1732, the Hon'ble Judges'of the Supreme Court were of the clear view that the scope of Section 195(1)(c) ,is restricted to cases where the offences alleged to have been committed by the party to a proceeding after he became such a party and not before.