Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of this Court a recent judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Sachidanand Singh v. State of Bihar 1998 SCC (Crl.) 660 : 1998 Cri LJ 1565. Dealing with the same issue another Division Bench of the Supreme Court posed the issue in the following terms (para 7 of Cri LJ) :

6. A reading of the clause reveals two main postulates for operation of the bar mentioned there. First is, there must be allegation that an offence (it should be either an offence described in Section 463 or any other offence described in Section 471, 475, 476 of the IPC) has been committed. Second is that such offence should have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. There is no dispute before us that if forgery has been committed while the document was in the custody of a Court then prosecution can be launched only with a complaint made by that Court. There is also no dispute that if forgery was committed with a document, which has not been produced in a Court, then the prosecution would lie at the instance of any person. If so, will its production in a Court make all the difference?" and came to the conclusion 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.

22. The distinction between a public document and a private document is well recognized under Sections 74 and 75 of the Evidence Act. The importance of a public document lies in the fact, that the normal rule of evidence with reference to proof of the contents of a document, that the document itself must be produced for the inspection for the Court is relaxed with reference to public documents. Therefore, commission of an offence of forgery with reference to a public document is viewed by the lawmakers as an aggravated form of forgery, which deserves a greater punishment than a punishment imposed for committing an offence of forgery with reference to a private document.

25. Coming to the third category of the offences dealt with under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (offences relating to the documents) as noticed earlier, the offences could be committed either with reference to a public document or a private document. Such offence of forgery if committed in the context of public document, could damage to the public administration and is likely to affect the society at large and therefore, more severe punishment is prescribed.

26. The fact remains that whether it is a private document or a public document, if an offence of forgery is committed or alleged to have been committed and the document is produced or given in evidence in any Court, (the expression 'Court' itself is explained in Clause 3 of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) in any proceeding, depending on the relevance of such document, the result of the proceeding may vary. Obviously, if the document is not a genuine document, the result of the proceedings in the Court is likely to be in favour of a person who relies upon such a document, thereby resulting in injustice. Of course there can be cases where even if a document is produced or given in evidence in any Court, depending upon the nature of the proceeding, the Court might come to the conclusion that the document is irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible in evidence in view of some provision of law and the Court might not base its conclusions on such a document. In such cases, it cannot be said that by the production or giving in evidence of such a document, the administration of justice is in any way hampered or affected.

27. Whenever a false document is made with such an intention as is described under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence of forgery is complete. It is immaterial whether the document is subsequently produced or given in evidence in any legal proceeding before any Court or authority legally authorized to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. When such a document is produced in any judicial proceeding before any Court a distinct offence falling under Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code is committed for which a punishment is prescribed under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Since it is an offence, which could be committed only in connection with the proceeding. Section 195(i)(b)(1) of the Indian Penal Code mandates that such an offence could be taken cognizance of by a Court only on a written complaint made by the Court before which such an offence is committed. On the other hand, in the context of giving in evidence of documents which are alleged to have been brought into existence by committing an offence of forgery, two distinct offences known to the Indian Penal Code are committed; one is the act of forgery and the other is the act of giving in evidence of such a document brought into existence by forgery, in a judicial proceeding.