Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. In Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh, reported in 1996 CriLJ 2304, the Supreme Court had held to the effect that once a document is produced or given in evidence in a Court, taking of cognizance on the basis of a private complaint of forgery, having been committed in respect of such a document, is completely barred. In other words, irrespective of the fact as to whether a forgery in respect of a document is committed before or after the document is introduced in evidence, the bar, created by Section 195(l)(b)(ii), gets attracted.

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. * * *

19. The controversy, therefore, raised is as to whether the bar, created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii), applies to cases, where forgery of a document is committed before the same is produced in the Court or Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is attracted only when such forgery is committed after the document has already been produced in the Court. This controversy has been authoritatively resolved by a Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, reported in 2005 CriLJ 2161, wherein, concurring with the views, expressed in Sachida Nand Singh (supra), the Constitution Bench has held that the bar, under Section 195(1)(b)(ii), would be attracted only when the offences enumerated therein have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, when the document was in custodia legis. The relevant observations, made in this regard, read as under (Para 25 of Cri LJ):

20. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement in Iqbal Singh Marwah case (supra), there can be no escape from the conclusion that when a document is forged and, then, produced in a Court, the complaint, as regards the offence of forgery, can be lodged by anyone and no formal complaint by the Court, where the forged document is filed or introduced, is necessary. However, a complaint by a Court is necessary only when forgery in respect of a document is committed after the document has already been produced in the Court or introduced in evidence, when the documents was custodia legis.