Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

We were taken through the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court. We are satisfied that the learned Judges were justified in coming to the conclusion on the evidence that Hemareddy alias Vemareddy is guilty under s 467 read with s. 144 I.P.C. and that Pyatal Bhimakka is guilty under s. 467 I.P.C. Since we agree with the learned Judges of the High Court on the question of fact in so far as it relates to A-2 in full and as regards Hemareddy alias Vemareddy (A-2) in respect of his conviction under s. 467 read with s. 114, it is unnecessary for us to refer to the evidence relied upon by the learned Judges for coming to the conclusion that Hemareddy alias Vemareddy is guilty under s. 467 read with s.114 I.P.C. and that Pyatal Bhimakka is guilty under s. 467 I.P.C. This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi v. Bigendra Nandini Choudry that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice. We shall deal with the case of the prosecution. against Hemareddy alias Vemareddy under s. 193 I.P.C. separately. We, therefore, confirm the conviction of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy under. s. 467 read with s. 114 I.P.C. all and of Pyatal Bhimakka under s. 467 I.P.C. We are of the opinion that no interference with the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court in regard to the sentence awarded to Pyatal Bhimakka is called for having regard to the fact that the learned Judges have given sufficient reasons for taking a lenient view in regard to that accused on the question of sentence. We, therefore, dismiss the Criminal Appeal in so far as it relates to the question of sentence awarded to Pyatal Bhimakka.

It is seen from the judgment under appeal that the learned Public Prosecutor of Karnataka had contended before the learned Judges of the High Court that the case against Hemareddy alias Vemareddy for fabricating false evidence may not be maintainable in view of the provisions of s. 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he may be prosecuted for abetting the offence of forgery and that the conviction of that accused under s. 467 read with s. 114 I.P.C. is justified on the facts of this case for while s. 193 I.P.C. is one of the sections mentioned in s. 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, s. 467 I.P.C. is not mentioned in that sub-clause of s. 195(1). The learned Judges rejected that submission, relying upon three decisions of the Madras High Court in Perianna Muthirian v. Vengu Ayyar, Ravanaoppa Reddy v. Emperor and in re. V.V.l. Narasimurthy. In the first of those cases the complainant stated that certain persons conspired with others and forged a document with the object of using it in evidence in certain proceedings pending in a court and other proceedings which might follow. That document was actually used in the proceedings pending before a court, and it has been held that the offence complained of fell under s. 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the complaint cannot be taken cognizance of unless it was in writing and by the court in which the offence was alleged to have been committed. It has been observed in that decision that to hold in such a case that although a private person was barred from prosecuting the accused for fabricating false evidence, he would still be at liberty to prosecute him for fraud would result in the provisions of s. 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being evaded and that it is not open to the court to try the accused either for fabricating evidence or for fraud because the specific offence of fabricating false evidence should be given preference over the more general offence of forgery. In the second case the complaint was filed by a private person alleging that the accused had fabricated a promissory note and induced a third party to file a suit against the complainant so as to obtain a fraudulent decree, and it has been held that the allegation made in the complaint attracted the provisions of s. 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court must refuse to take cognizance. In the third case, Somasundaram, J. has observed :

70. He filed the complaint before the Police on 24-11-70 and before the court subsequently on 15-12-70. It is not disputed that the forged sale deed dated 10-11-70 was not produced in the suit filed by the complainant for redemption of the mortgage. Mr. P. Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing for A-1, who assisted the court as Amicus Curiae for Pyatal Bhimakka, A-2, invited our attention to the decision in re. Vasudeo Ramchandra Joshi and submitted that the complaint should have been filed by the court in which the suit for redemption of the mortgage was filed by the complainant Narsappa Eliger in view of the provisions of s. 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that as the complaint was filed directly by the private individual, the prosecution of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy for offences under s. 467 read with s. 114 I.P.C. and s. 193 I.P.C. is bad. In that decision reference has been made to the decisions of the Bombay High Court in (1912) 14 Bombay Law Reporter 362 and

"(195) (1) No Court shall take cognizance,
(a)..................................
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or ........................

.................................................." It could be seen that the section requires that the offence under s. 193 I.P.C. should be alleged to have been committed in or in relation to, any proceeding in any court. Since the forged sale deed was not produced in evidence in any stage of the redemption suit, s. 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted. Therefore, the Magistrate who committed the accused to the Sessions, could not have taken cognizance of any offence under s. 193 I.P.C. so far as Hemareddy alias Vemareddy (A-1) is concerned. The complaint could have been taken on file only for an offence punishable under s. 467 read with s. 114 I.P.C. so far as that accused is concerned. It would follow that no complaint by the court for prosecuting Hemareddy alias Vemareddy for the offence under s. 467 read with s. 114 I.P.C. is required, and he could be validly convicted for that offence on the complaint given by the private individual. We are, therefore, of the opinion that learned Judges of the High Court were not right in law in holding that the complaint in this case was totally not maintainable against Hemareddy alias Vemareddy in view of the provisions of s. 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in not only acquitting Hemareddy alias Vemareddy of the offence under s. 467 read with s. 114 I.P.C. but also in finding that he has committed an offence punishable under s. 193 I.P.C. We accordingly confirm the judgment of the High Court as regards modification of the sentence awarded to Pyatal Bhimakka (A-2) and the acquittal of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy under s. 193 I.P.C. and dismiss the appeal to that extent but allow the appeal in part so far as Hemareddy alias Vemareddy is concerned and find him guilty under s. 467 read with s. 114 I.P.C. and convict him and sentence him to undergo R.I. for one year and also pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for three months.