Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"From the discussion made above, we hold that as mentioned above neither the plain language employed in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) nor the purpose for which the said Section was enacted by the Legislature, creates any bar for a Court to take cognizance and launch prosecution of a person who might have committed forgery of a document or of the offences as envisaged under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code. We further hold that while taking cognizance of the offences of the type mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) i.e. the documents that were forged in the precincts of the Court and not outside the precincts of the Court and then produced and holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 340, the Court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. The forgery of a document has to be such that may affect the administration of justice. If the parameters contained in Section 340 are in existence, there will be no bar for the Court to take cognizance of the offences as mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and launch prosecution against the accused. We further hold that there is no bar placed upon the Court even remotely to take cognizance of the offences that are spelled out in S 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code if the document has been forged outside the precincts of the Court and then produced in the Court. It may be desirable in such cases to still see as to whether prosecuting an offender would be expedient for the administration of justice but it is not sine-qua-non for initiation of proceedings against an accused that all parameters mentioned in Section 340 must be strictly meted. We further hold that while holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 340 of the Code, it is not necessary for the Court to observe in writing that it is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that the enquiry should be made. Once the source of power to initiate the inquiry is in existence non-mention of the Section empowering the Court or recording in writing the reasons forming an opinion as such, shall not be essential."

4. That is how the matter has been placed before me.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised only three points before me :

(1) Before filing a complaint before the Court under Section 340, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing. Therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice and the filing of the complaint under Section 340, Cr.P.C. is liable to be quashed.
(2) There is a delay in filing the complaint.
(3) Since more than 16 years lapsed from the date of filing of the complaint, there is violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to have a speedy trial as envisaged by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.

Point 1 :

6. It is useful to refer to Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or 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 that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary :-

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed -
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the Presiding Officer of the Court.
(4) In this section, "Court has the same meaning as in Section 195.

7. A reading of Section 340, Cr.P.C. shows that the Court is empowered to make such preliminary inquiry as it thinks necessary. The very word used in Section 340, Cr.P.C. contemplates that it is always for the Court to hold a preliminary inquiry. The Section does not envisage hearing of the accused before filing a complaint. It is always open to the accused to raise all the defences that are open to him under Law before the Magistrate in whose Court the complaint has been filed. The principle of audi-alterampartem only means that no party should be condemned unheard. It does not postulate that before making complaint, a party should be heard. The petitioner has not been condemned of any act or omission. This Court prima-facie took the view that a forged document has been used for the purpose of showing that the appeal filed by the appellants in the first appeal in land acquisition matter was within limitation. Whether any forgery was committed or not; whether the petitioner is responsible for committing the forgery and whether the petitioner is guilty of any offence, are all matters to be gone into during the trial of the case. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, devoid of any merit and the same is rejected.