Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SJ49-19 AW NMCD2324-19INCOMSS1030-19.DOC pronouncement, in the case of Sachida Nand Singh and anr. vs. State of Bihar and anr.9 observed as under:

"17. Mr. Yogesh Kanna, the learned Counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu placed reliance upon Schida Nand Sing and submitted that even if any offence involving forgery of document is committed outside the precincts of the court and long before its production in the court, the same would also be treated as one affecting the administration of justice. After referring to various judgments, in Sachida Nand Singh, it was held as under:

12. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the court records.

18. There could be no two views about the proposition that even if forgery is committed outside the precincts of the court and long before its production in the court, it would also be treated as one affecting the administration of justice."

(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis."

(emphasis supplied)

34. The Supreme Court has, thus, held in unambiguous terms that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect of a document, cutodia legis. The Supreme Court has held that the enunciation in the case of Sachida Nand (supra) that the bar is not attracted where forgery of document was committed before the document was produced in Court, was correct.

"18. In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. 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 interest of justice." This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before fling of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a fnding 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(i)(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 remedyless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remedyless, has to be discarded."