Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The Revisional Court has dealt with each of the points raised before it one by one. Firstly it has dealt with the objection as to whether proceedings in the said case is barred by provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C.?

8. Before proceedings to decide the said point, it has mentioned in the said order that it would transpire from perusal of the record of the case that one Civil Suit No. 100 of 1987, Rajbali Vs. Shiv Mangal was decided on 1.02.1993 in terms of compromise which had annexed with Commissioner Map 16 Ka-2 and after decision in that case, the applicants made interpolation in the said map showing the channel, which was shown existing coming out from the western side of the house of Shiv Mangal towards east and which was shown terminated four latha prior to the end of western boundary wall of the O.P. No.2/complainant. The said drain which was shown terminated at the said point was in the modified/interpolated map which was going further up to the channel which was situated/existing by the boundary wall of O.P. No.2. Such kind of interpolation was alleged to have been made in collusion with the concerned clerk. Therefore it was the allegation that after decision in the said case, the map which was annexed i.e. 16-Ka-2, which was part of the decree, in that, channel was shown extended by committing forgery in the said document and this could be known to the O.P. No.2 only when the accused applicants filed another Suit No. 508 of 1995. When this fact came into the knowledge of O.P. No. 2, he moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the lower court, which has summoned the accused applicants under the above-mentioned sections. The Revisional Court has recorded that the plea of the proceedings being barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C. was taken on four grounds:-

12. Further I deem it proper to take up the point as to whether the citation which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant would be applicable here or not which is Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Minaxi Marwah and another (2005) 4 SCC 370.

13. In this case the question involved was whether bar contained in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. would apply if forgery of a document was committed before the said document was produced in Court. The Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh Case 1998 (2) SCC 493 observed that the said bar would not be applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court. But, in view of conflict of opinion before decisions of the Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh and Surjit Singh Case [1996 (3) SCC 533], this appeal was placed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and in this appeal, the facts were that appellants filed proceedings before the District Judge for grant of probate of a will allegedly executed by the deceased (brother of the appellants). The respondents filed a Criminal Complaint for prosecution of the appellants and their mother under Sections 192, 193, 463, 464, 465, 467, 469, 471, 499 and 500 I.P.C. on the ground that the said will produced by the appellants was a forged and fictitious document. In view of the above bar contained in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate dismissed the complaint. In revision, relying upon Sachida Nand Singh case, the Sessions Judge held that the bar contained in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) would not apply where forgery of a document was committed before the said document was produced in court. The High Court upheld the order of the Sessions Judge and hence, the present appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that clause (b) (ii) of Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any court. The scheme of clauses (a) and (b) (i) of Section (195) (1) being that the offence described therein should be such which has direct bearing or affects the functioning or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice, 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) should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not appear to be in tune with clauses (a) (i) and (b) (i) and consequently with scheme of the section 195 Cr.P.C.

14. It is very much evident from the interpretation made by Hon'ble Apex Court that for any offence which has been stipulated under Section 195 Cr.P.C. quoted above, bar would be applicable only when forgery in the document is committed subsequent to its having been filed before the Court and not if the said forgery has been committed prior to its filing before the court. But in the present case, I am not concerned with such a situation to be assessed because the offence under Section 466 I.P.C. does not find mention in the provision under Section 195 Cr.P.C. It may also be mentioned here that the forgery which is stated to have been committed is alleged to have been committed after the conclusion of the trial and not during the court proceeding as it is admitted to the parties that the compromise decree had been passed which had annexed with it the said map which is alleged to have been subsequently tampered with by making some interpolation in the map annexed and in this act, the allegation is that the accused applicants had colluded with the concerned clerk and had made the interpolation, therefore, the said wrong which is stated to have been committed, was not committed during the court proceedings while the case was pending, therefore, even if this offence was covered under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the bar would not be applicable in the present case in view of the law which is cited above in the judgement relied upon by the applicant himself hence, the question of applicability of bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. does not arise, therefore, benefit of the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants can not be given.

(c) a certificate or document purported to be made by a public servant in his official capacity as such; or

(d) an authority to institute or defend a suit; or

(e) to take any proceedings there in or to confess judgement; or

(f) a power of attorney.

19. It is apparent from the bare reading of section 466 I.P.C. that it seeks to treat forgery of certain specific kind of document as an aggravated form of offence.

20. The bare perusal of the above quoted section makes it clear that it begins with word 'whoever forges a document', these words nowhere imply that the person who forges the document would not include a private person and would have to be a government servant, hence the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that for constituting an offence under Section 466 I.P.C., the accused has to be a Government Servant, does not stand to reason and the finding of the Revisional Court is absolutely in accordance with law.