Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13

16. In this regard in the case of Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 1998(2) SCC 493, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"6. A reading of the clause reveals two main postulates for operation of the bar mentioned there. First is, there must be allegation that an offence (it should be either an offence described in Section 463 or any other offence punishable under Sections 471, 475, 476 of the IPC) has been committed. Second is that such offence should have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. There is no dispute before us that if forgery has been committed while the document was in the custody of a court, then prosecution can be launched only with a complaint made by that court. There is also no dispute that if forgery was committed with a document which has not been produced in a court then the prosecution would lie at the instance of any person. If so, will its production in a court make all the difference?
xxx xxx xxx
23. The sequitur of the above discussion is 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. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal."

17. Before applying the principle of Sachida Nand Singh's case, in the present case, it is necessary to mention about the background of the case. A contrary view to that of Sachida Nand Singh's case has been expressed by three Judges Bench in Surjit Singh vs. Balbir Singh's case [1996(3) SCC 533], the same was referred to a Constitutional Bench and the Bench has resolved the conflicting views in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah reported in (2005) 4 SCC

370. The Constitutional Bench has approved the view passed in Sachida Nand Singh's case. In the case of Sachida Nand Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if forgery has been committed while the document was in the custody of the court, then prosecution can be launched only with a complaint made by that court but if forgery was committed with a document which has not been produced in a court then prosecution would lie at the instance of a ny person.

18. Further, in the case of Narendra Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of Bihar passed in Cr.A. No. 211/19, after retreating the pronouncement of case Sachida Nand Singh (supra) and has held as under:-

22. Therefore, in view of forgoing discussion, this court is of the view that in framing the charges under Sections 193, 206 & 207 of IPC against the petitioner No.1 & 2, the learned lower court did not make any error of law as well as the charge for the offence under Section 193 of IPC which has been framed against the petitioner Nos. 3-9 is concerned, there is also no illegality is found in the order passed by learned lower court. As far as charge for the offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 is concerned, it is found contrary to spirit of Section 195 of Cr.P.C as it appears that the alleged forgery with document was not done when the same was under