Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1) Whether a photograph is a document within the meaning of Section 29 of the I.P.C.?

2) Whether the preparation of photograph by the method of super-imposition as is alleged to have been done in this case in the form of Annexure A, B, C and D comes within the definition of forgery in Section 464 I.P.C.?

3) Whether an active member of the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act can be treated as a 'person aggrieved' for filing a criminal complaint under Section 500 I.P.C. for the defamation of the other office bearers of that Society, or the Society.?

7. Hon'ble the Chief Justice by his order dated 10th August, 1979, directed that in the facts and circumstances of the case the whole case may be heard by a larger Bench. Thus the whole case has been referred to us for decision and the learned Counsel for both the parties addressed their arguments on the entire case.

8. Mr. Jethmalani, learned Counsel for the accused petitioners, contended that even if all the allegations as mentioned in the complaint may be taken to be correct no offence is made out against the accused persons and the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance and to issue process against the accused applicants. As regards the offences under Sections 505(2) and (3) and 120B I.P.C. it is submitted that no sanction has been obtained as contemplated under Section 196 Cr. P.C. and no court could have taken cognizance of the above offences without the prior sanction. As regards the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. is concerned it is contended that Phool Singh complainant is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199 Cr. P.C. It is argued that there is no imputation against the Divine Light Mission as such and the alleged photographs at the most can be said to contain an imputation or defamation of Satpal Singh in his individual capacity that he was fond of wine and women. Satpal Singh has not been cited as a witness in the list of witnesses filed along with the compliant. Satpal Singh is the real brother of accused Prempal Singh and in a litigation concerning these very photographs a compromise has been effected between the partier and Satpal Singh has withdrawn his civil suit filed against the accused persons in Delhi High Court on 23rd May, 1975. The photographs do not contain anything to suggest that the Divine Light Mission has been defamed. Neither the photographs 'C and 'D' nor 'A' and 'B' show as to who was the author of these photographs. It is also submitted that defamation has not been considered in the category of other criminal offences and there is a clear mandate of the Legislature by enacting Section 199 Cr. P.C. that no court shall take cognizance of such offences except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The purpose of enacting such provision is that the person defamed must be put to the exposure of cross-examination. If another person is allowed to prosecute a case of defamation the accused may be deprived of an opportunity to cross examine the real aggrieved person. The interest of commnunity in cases of offences of defamation is not so great as to allow strangers of busy bodies or even friends or followers of a particular sect to bring the law into motion for injury to their sentiments. It is contended that if only feelings and sentiments of a person are hurt then he cannot fall into the category of an aggrieved person and he must prove an injury to his legal rights. Reliance is placed on Hussainbhay Ismailji v. Emperor AIR 1936 Sind 98, Dhirendra Nath Sen and Anr. v. Rajat Kanti Bhadra AIR 1936 Sind 98 Adi Firozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai AIR 1936 Sind 98, D Narasinghan and Ors. v. T.V. Chokhappa , and Queen Empress v. Nage Paw Gale : Criminal Revision No. 431/1892 reported in selected judgments and rulings of the Court of Judicial Commissioner, lower Burma and the Special Court. It is next contended that no offence under Section 468 or 469 I.P.C. is made out, for an act to become forgery it must be proved that a false document was made as defined under Section 464 I.P.C. According to the learned Counsel Clause (iii) of Section 464 I.P.C. is not relevant. As regards chause (i) and (ii) of S, 464 I.P.C. it is contended that the author of the original document must be known. Unless the author of photograph 'C' and 'D' were known, it cannot be said that photographs 'A' and 'B' were prepared without lawful authority. It is argued that taking a photograph of a person is not prohibited under the law. Even if a document contains a false statement, it cannot make it false document unless the document tells a lie about itself It is also submitted that according to the allegations made by Satpal Singh in the plaint filed in the Delhi High Court these photographs were alleged to be forged in USA and under Section 188 Cr. P.C. when an offence is committed outside India, no such offence cannot enquired into or tried in India except with the previous section of the General Government. Is is thus contended that for accused Nos. 1 3 and 4 sanction of the Central Government was necessary and as for accused Nos 2 and 5 who are American citizens, they cannot be enquired into or tried in India for offences committed in America. It is then submitted that when no offence at all is made out or could be tried by the learned Magistrate, the continuation of such proceedings would be a clear abuse of process of the Court and such proceedings must be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Reliance is placed on the Allowing observations in Motisingh Gambhirsingh v. The State :

Even if the accused has made a part of the document, namely column 5 of Ex. 12 that part in fact was made or executed by the person by whom is purports to be executed, namely the accused and therefore accused cannot be said to have made a false document. Including in a document, certain false recitals or particulars is not forgery. The mere making of a false statement in a document would not come within Section 468 I.P.C. Code and would not amount to forgery. Here we are dealing with a receipt which the law does not require to be a tested. It is not necessary to consider in this case whether falsely attesting a document which the law requires to be a tested would amount to forgery.

14. Mr. Khanna also contended that the photographs 'A' and 'B clearly fall within the mischief of making a false document as defined in Clause (i) and (ii) of Section 464 I.P.C. It is not at all necessary that the author of photographs 'C and 'D from which photographs 'A' and B' have been prepared, should be known. It is contended that no photograph can be without an author and photographs 'C and 'D' were taken by some person and if photographs 'A' and 'B' have been prepared without his authority and knowing or believing that such authority has not been given, it would suffice to make a false document. Learned Counsel further argued that a photograph depicts a scene of a particular evert existing at the particular moment and if a person by cancellation or otherwise alters such scene in a decument, then it certainly amounts to making a false document Learned Counsel submitted his argument by giving an illustration that if scene of an accident is taken in a photograph and then something is taken out of it and replaced by other kinds of scene by preparing another photograph, then the second photograph will amount to making a file document and thus will amount to an offence of forgery under the Indian Penal Code.