Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal arises out of order dated 18.9.2013 of the Company Law Board w hereby the Company Law Board while holding that the document, i.e., Resolution of Board of Directors dated 16.8.2010 filed by the Respondent (Petitioner in the Company Petition) was a forgery, refused to proceed further with the application filed by the Appellant (Respondent in the Company Petition) to initiate action and prosecute the Respondent for perjury and contempt. The Company Law Board dismissed the application relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in IQBAL SINGH M ARWAH V. M EENAKSHI M ARWAH, 2005 (4) SCC 370 and held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC was 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 any court during the time the s ame was in custodial legis. The Company Law B oard further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of SACHIDA N AND SINGH & A NR. V S. STATE OF B I HAR & A NR., 1998 (2) SCC 493 and held that it would be 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 reaches the court.

36. The Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate held that there was a bar under Section 195 CrPC on it from taking cognizance as the issue of genuineness of Will was pending before the District Judge. In a Revision filed against the said order, the Sessions Judge, held that the bar of Section 195 CrPC would not apply where forgery of document was committed before the said document was produced in Court and, accordingly, the Revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for proceedings in accordance with law.

38. The Supreme Court further held that an enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse.

39. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision in the case of SACHIDA N AND SINGH (S UPRA) wherein it was pointed out that, if an enlarged interpretation were given, there may be a situation where after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. The Supreme Court held that s uch an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large.

44. Para 12 has to be read in context of Para 8 wherein the Court has laid down as under:
8. That apart it is difficult to interpret Section 195(1)(b)(ii) 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. Any such construction is likely to ensue unsavoury consequences. For instance, if rank forgery of a valuable document is detected and the forgerer is sure that he would imminently be embroiled in prosecution proceedings he can simply get that document produced in any long-