Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

“23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded.”

xxx xxx xxx

21. As already mentioned, clauses under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC i.e. sub-section 195(1)(b)(i) and sub-section 195(1)(b)(ii) cater to separate offences. Though Section 340 CrPC is a generic section for offences committed under Section 195(1)(b), the same has different and exclusive application to clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC.

22. In Sachida Nand Singh [(1998) 2 SCC 493] relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court was considering the question as to whether the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC is applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court. It was held: (SCC pp. 497 & 501, paras 6 & 23) “6. A reading of the clause reveals two main postulates for operation of the bar mentioned there. First is, there must be allegation that an offence (it should be either an offence described in Section 463 or any other offence punishable under Sections 471, 475 and 476 IPC) has been committed. Second is that such offence should have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. There is no dispute before us that if forgery has been committed while the document was in the custody of a court, then prosecution can be launched only with a complaint made by that court. There is also no dispute that if forgery was committed with a document which has not been produced in a court then the  prosecution would lie at the instance of any person. If so, will its production in a court make all the difference?

“II. The said application is liable/ought to be dismissed in as much as a perusal of the complaint and its accompaniments not only make out a case under section 192/193 IPC but the same also leads to a conclusion that the offences under sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 475 & 477-A of IPC have also been made out and as such, the accused persons be proceeded accordingly.

xxx xxx xxx V. The said application deserves to be dismissed because the law relating to the bar engrafted in section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in the court. As such, the documents forgery of which have been committed were not the custodia legis.”

165. The learned Special Judge, therefore, in our opinion, erred in holding that the accused had prepared a false document, which clearly, having regard to the provisions of the law, could not have been done.

166. Further, the offence of forgery deals with making of a false document with the specific intentions enumerated therein. The said section has been reproduced below.

“463. Forgery.—Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” However, since we have already held that the commission of the said offence has not been convincingly established, the accused could not have been convicted for the offence of forgery. The definition of “false document” is a part of the definition of “forgery”.  Both must be read together. [Vimla (Dr.) v. Delhi Admn. [AIR 1963 SC 1572] Accordingly, the accused could not have been tried for offence under Section 467 which deals with forgery of valuable securities, will, etc. or Section 471 i.e. using as genuine a forged document or Section 477-A i.e. falsification of accounts. The conviction of the accused for the said offences is accordingly set aside.”