Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In that case the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had dismissed the application moved by the accused under Section 482, Cr. P.C. by holding that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted as the offences under Sections 474 and 471, I.P.C. were distinct inasmuch as Section 463, I.P.C. could not be construed to include Section 467,I.P.C. as well and, therefore, it was competent for the Magistrate to have taken cognizance of and try the complaint. The Supreme Court in the Gopal krishna Menon's case (AIR 1983 SC 1053) (supra) observed that the offence which was made punishable under Section 467, I.P.C. was in respect of an offence described in Section 463, I.P.C. and once it was accepted that Section 463,1.P.C. defined forgery and Section 467, I.P.C. provided punishment for forgery of a particular category, the provision in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code would immediately be attracted and hence offence punishable under Section 467 of the Penal Code was an offence described under Section 463, I.P.C. and, therefore, in absence of a complaint by the Court the prosecution in respect of that offence would also not be maintainable. In that view of the matter the Supreme Court held that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court was wrong. Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court thereafter referred to the case of Patel Lalji Bhai Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1971 SC 1935 and observed that not the conclusion but the ratio supported the view taken in Gopalkrishna Menon's case (AIR 1983 SC 1053) (supra).