Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. is analogous to Section 195 (1) (b) (i) Cr.P.C. Under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) the offences for which cognizance can be taken is detailed, which revolves around forgery; u/s 195 (1) (b) (i) the offences under the penal code for which cognizance can be taken revolves around false evidence and fabrication of document. Similarly, forgery is analogous to fabrication of document and there cannot be any second opinion about it. http://www.judis.nic.in  ____________________ Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 & 1091/2007

* * * * * * * *

23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC 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 interests 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 interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This http://www.judis.nic.in  ____________________ Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 & 1091/2007 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 remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded.

33. From the above proposition postulated in Sachida Nand Singh's case (supra) as affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh's case (supra), two http://www.judis.nic.in  ____________________ Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 & 1091/2007 scenarios emerge, one is the committing of the act of fabrication of document/forgery during proceeding in court and the second scenario is committing the act of fabrication of document/forgery during the stage of investigation/prosecution, of which the latter situation is the issue in the present case. The Supreme Court went on to hold that of the two interpretations, the narrower interpretation has to be chosen. The Supreme Court has further held that it is difficult to interpret Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), which is analogous to Section 195 (1) (b) (i), as containing a bar against initiation of prosecution proceedings merely because the document concerned was produced in a court albeit the act of forgery was perpetrated prior to its production in the Court. The Supreme Court held that such construction is likely to ensue unsavoury consequences and it was held that it is settled proposition that if the language of a legislation is capable of more than one interpretation, the one which is capable of causing mischievous consequences should be averted. In this regard, the Supreme Court relied on the decision in Gill – Vs – Donald Humberstone & Co. Ltd. (1963 (1) WLR 929 :: 1963 (3) All ER 1803).

36. Further, the Supreme Court went on to hold that the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C., shows that 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 interests of justice”, which clearly shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. So long as the interest of http://www.judis.nic.in  ____________________ Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 & 1091/2007 justice does not require, no complaint is required to be made at the behest of the Court and non-filing of a complaint by the Court with regard to fabrication of documents/forgery would not attract the bar as envisaged u/s 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C.