Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant firstly urged that there was no material whatsoever against the appellant who, at the relevant time, was the Acting Director of the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. He referred to the earlier order passed by this Court and pointed out that this Court had given the liberty to the appellant to file the discharge application and it was in terms of that order that the application was filed. The further argument of Shri Ranjit Kumar is that neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had considered the questions raised in the discharge application. He pointed out on merits that it was not the appellant who authored the aforementioned letter dated 09.06.1992, nor had the appellant sworn or filed the affidavit before the High Court, of which the alleged letter was part, since that affidavit was sworn by Shri M. Ramakrishna. He argued that the appellant had not even taken any advantage from the letter dated 09.06.1992. He further argued that in spite of the order of this Court, specifically granting liberty to the appellant to file a discharge application, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court did not go into the aspect of discharge at all. Learned Senior Counsel, by way of his legal submissions, urged that at the time when the inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was ordered in relation to the alleged forgery of the letter dated 09.06.1992, the provisions of law with reference to the forgery of document contemplated under Section 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C. and related Sections did not make a distinction between forgery being committed outside the Court and while the document was custodia legis. The learned counsel heavily relied upon a decision of this Court reported as Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. V. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. [2005 (4) SCC 370] wherein this Court had held that proceeding under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. could only be initiated if the forgery was committed during the time when the documents were custodia legis and not when the forgery was committed outside the Court i.e. before the document had been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. He, therefore, urged that there could not be any initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. much less for the offences under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and the other allied offences because, admittedly, the forgery was not committed in respect of the document dated 09.06.1992 when the letter was custodia legis. Learned counsel also invited our attention to the earlier order passed by the High Court wherein three other accused were discharged, who were similarly circumstanced as the appellant herein.