Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) are concerned, they must be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any court, while the offences specified in sub clause (ii) must be alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. A plain reading of the provisions of section 195(1)(b) (i) and (ii) makes it clear that every court is prohibited from taking cognizance of the offences specified in sub clause (i) and (ii), except on a complaint in writing of the concerned court, whenever such offences are alleged to have been committed under the circumstances stated above. Now, the offences specified in the two sub clauses are described with reference to the sections of the Indian Penal Code under which they are made punishable, except in one case, that is to say, the case of section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case of section 463, the words used are "any offence described in section 463". Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code simply defines the term 'forgery' or, in other words, specifies the circumstances under which a person can be said to have committed forgery. The offence of forgery is, however, punishable under section 465 of the IPC and sections 466. 467, 468 provide for punishment of different species of forgery. In this connexion, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.L.Goswamt v. Madhya Pradesh High Court may be referred to. In the said decision, it has been held that an offence under section 466 of the Penal Code is an offence which falls within the description of section 463 and is covered by clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 195 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure which corresponds to sub section (i)(b)(ii) of the present Code. Following this decision of the Supreme Court, it can be said that section 463 of the Indian Penal Code which defines forgery as a general term is referred to in sub section (i)(b)(ii) in a comprehensive sense so as to embrace all species of forgery. In other words, even though sections 465, 466, 467, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code are not explicitly specified in sub section (1)(b)(ii), the offences punishable under those sections can also be said to be the offences which are covered by the expression "any offence described in section 463".

7. Let us now endeavour to find out what offences, if any, can be said to appear to have been committed in this case. Xerox copy of the order passed by justice Samaresh Banerjea in C.O. No. 5437(W) of 1994 on 27.3.95 and the xerox copy of the charge-sheet submitted by the CBI, which were produced by the learned counsel for the CBI at the time of hearing of this revisional application constitute the only materials on record for the purpose of ascertaining as to which offences can be said to appear to have been committed in the instant case. On a scrutiny of the facts and circumstances revealed by the above materials on record, it can be said that they disclose commission by the petitioner of (1) an offence of fabricating false evidence punishable under section 193 of the IPC for the purpose of being used otherwise than in any stage of a judicial proceeding. (ii) the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 of IPC. (iii) the offence of forgery punishable under section 465 of the IPC, (iv) the offence of forgery of a court record punishable under section 466 of the IPC, (v) the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating as punishable under section 468 of the IPC and (vi) the offence of dishonest and fraudulent user of a forged document as genuine punishable under section 471 of the IPC.

In Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana; , the Supreme Court held that until the original document is produced in the court, the bar of section 195(1)(b)(ii) does not get attracted. Such a view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in : Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh. Incidentally, it may be pointed out here that the decision of a single Bench of this court reported in 1985 CriLJ 1956; Shrikrishan Khatry v. Gobardhan Nath Tandon which was cited on behalf of the petitioner, also echoes the aforesaid proposition to the effect that unless it was prima facie established that the original forged document was in fact produced as evidence, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry under section 340 CrPC nor does he have jurisdiction to file a complaint. Mr. B. Kumar did not, however, advance any argument to suggest that the original forged document was produced in evidence before the Bench. Accordingly, it must be held that for the offences punishable under sections 466 and 468 involving the element of forgery as described in section 463 of the IPC, the bar under section 195(1)(b)(ii) is not at all attracted, necessitating a court complaint.