Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 :