Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate;
(e) bind over any person to appear and given evidence before such Magistrate.

11. 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 filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest 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 inquiry 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 scope of preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
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.

13. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh's case came to the conclusion that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b) (ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court.

In a subsequent judgment in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. , the Supreme Court while considering the scope and ambit of Section 195(1) and Section 340 Cr.P.C. affirmed the view taken in Sachida Nand Singh's case in holding as follows:

In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(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.

14. In the instant case, the document in question, i.e., the unregistered Agreement for Sale (Ext. C in the suit) having been alleged to have been forged and fabricated prior to its production as evidence in the Court of Sub-Judge, Puri, in Title Suit No. 108 of 1991, the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted. Hence the offence of forgery of the document in question having been alleged to have been committed outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, it cannot be treated as one affecting the administration of justice merely because the said forged document subsequently reached the Court records.