Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. 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 on reached the Court records.

xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

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 committee before the document was produced in a Court."

11. The controversy is no more res integra in view of judgment of five Judges Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in „Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr.‟, (2005) 4 SCC 370, wherein it was observed as under:

"20. 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. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh, 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. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of society at large."