Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: criminal procedure code 340 in Bhima Razu Prasad vs StateMatching Fragments
13. Learned senior counsel, on the prosecution initiated against A-2 and A- 3, questioned the legality of the said prosecution by adverting to Section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that in addition to the charge u/s 120 (B) IPC, charge u/s 193 IPC has been framed against A-2 and A-
3. Learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to the offence u/s 193 IPC and submitted that the offence relates to punishment for false evidence given http://www.judis.nic.in ____________________ Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 & 1091/2007 by any person during any stage of a judicial proceeding or fabrication of false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that for framing a charge u/s 193 IPC, the ingredients as envisaged u/s 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. needs to be fulfilled. Section 195 Cr.P.C. deals with taking cognizance for prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offence relating to documents given in evidence. Particular reference was drawn to Section 195 (1) (b) (i), which mandates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, viz., Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. The procedure for invoking action for offences affecting the administration of justice is contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the procedure mandated u/s 340 Cr.P.C. insofar as offences affecting administration of justice as provided u/s 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. is that it relates to taking action by the court in relation to a proceeding in that Court or as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court, where the Court can take action as contemplated therein on the basis of a preliminary inquiry and http://www.judis.nic.in ____________________ Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 & 1091/2007 complaint. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the charge has been framed against A-2 and A-3 u/s 193 IPC, which is not in relation to any offence affecting administration of justice for prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of a public servant. No offence having been committed during any judicial proceeding as contemplated under the above provisions of the Code, the court not having taken any action nor given any complaint thereof as the court alone being the aggrieved party in respect of offence u/s 193 IPC, the charge u/s 193 IPC against A-2 and A-3 is illegal and without jurisdiction. Excluding the Court, no other party can raise a complaint for an offence insofar as Sections 192 and 193 IPC are concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in ____________________ Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 & 1091/2007
22. To answer the legal issue as to the bar for prosecuting A-2 and A-3 u/s 193 IPC, it is but necessary to advert to offence falling u/s 193 IPC and also to Section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C., wherein procedure for dealing with an offence u/s 193 IPC is contemplated. For better clarity, Section 193 IPC and Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. are quoted hereunder :-
29. The procedure for taking cognizance by the Court finds place in Section 340 Cr.P.C., wherein the Court, after preliminary inquiry, if it thinks necessary, may proceed with filing a complaint. In the case on hand, no complaint has been filed by the Court, though charge has been framed against A-2 and A-3 for an offence u/s 193 IPC with regard to fabricating false evidence for the purpose of helping A-1 to wriggle out of the prosecution. In such a case, documents fabricated being before trial, and the Court having taken cognizance of the offence and has proceeded with the trial without raising any complaint as contemplated u/s 340 Cr.P.C., this Court is entrusted with the task of analysing whether in the absence of a complaint by the Court, the charge against A-2 and A-3 could be sustained.
34. It has been further held by the Supreme Court in the above said decision that Section 340 (1) Cr.P.C. has an interlink with Section 195 (1) (b). In http://www.judis.nic.in ____________________ Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 & 1091/2007 that, no complaint can be made by a court regarding any offence falling within the ambit of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., without first adopting the procedural requirement of Section 340 (1) Cr.P.C. The scope of preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340 (1) Cr.P.C. 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. So the offences envisaged in Section 195 (1) (b) must involve acts which would have affected the administration of justice and that it should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis. The Supreme Court, in this regard, held that it would be strained thinking that any offence as prescribed u/s 195 (1)