Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 :

We are bound by the view expressed in this decision that the Legislature could not have intended to extend the prohibition contained in s. 195(1) (c) Cr. P.C. to the offences mentioned therein when committed by a party to a proceeding in that court prior to his becoming such party. In the decision in Raghunath and Others v. State of U.P. and Others it is observed :

709
"In this Court the main contention raised on behalf of the appellants by their learned counsel was that even prosecution for an offence under Section 465 I.P.C. requires complaint by the revenue court concerned as such an offence is covered by Section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. This contention is difficult to accept. This Court has recently in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat [1971] 2 SCC 376 after considering the conflict of judicial opinion on this point, approved the view taken in Kushal Pal Singh case (supra). According to that decision the words "to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court" in Section 195(1)(c) mean that the offence should be alleged to have been committed by the party to the proceeding in his character as such party, that is, after having become a party to the proceeding. The appellants' learned counsel tried to distinguish the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kushal Pal Singh case (supra) by pointing out that in that case the offence of forgery was alleged to have been committed in 1898, more than 25 years before it was produced or given in evidence in court and it was for this reason that Section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. was held to be inapplicable. In our view, the duration of time between the date of forgery and the production or giving in evidence of the forged document in court is not a governing factor. The principle laid down in Sombabhai's case (supra) was not founded on any such consideration. Reference to such delay was made in that decision in another context. After taking notice of the fact that Section 195(1)(c), Cr. P.C. deprives a private aggrieved party of the general right recognized by Section 190 Cr.P.C. of directly initiating criminal proceedings this Court observed in the case:

In the present case, the offence of abetment of forgery was complete when the forged sale deed dated 10-11-70 was fabricated and registered. But no offence under s. 193 I.P.C. falling within the scope of s. 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. could be stated to have been committed by Hemareddy alias Vemareddy as the forged sale deed was not at all put in evidence at any stage in the redemption suit filed by the complainant on 17-11-70. Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads:

"(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.