Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (2.03 seconds)
Documents citing S. L. Goswami vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur on 23 November, 1978

Ramsewak And Ors. vs Narendra Kumar And Ors. on 3 July, 1995

8. In view of the above, there is merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioners. Even for an offence referred to above under the Indian Penal Code, the cognizance could not have been taken on the basis of a private complaint. The provisions of Section 195 of the Code would be attracted. This petition is allowed. The order passed by the Sessions Judge permitting the trial to go on and the trial Magistrate permitting the prosecution is quashed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Hiralal Banka And Ors. vs Mr. P.S. Bose And Ors. on 8 April, 1993

9. Section 471 I.P.C. provides for punishment for fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine any document which the person using the same knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document. Obviously this Section of the Indian Penal Code has been included in the F.I.R. in view of the allegation contained therein that the petitioners used forged or fabricated documents in the proceeding before the income tax authority regarding assessment of income tax payable by them. This Section 471 I.P.C. finds place in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr. P.C. and therefore in view of Section 136, Income Tax Act read with Section 195 Cr. P.C. a prosecntion for the said offence Under Section 471 I.P.C. which has been included in the F.I.R. can be launched only on the basis of a written complaint of the concerned income tax authority or of some authority to which the former is subordinate. Such also is the case in respect of the offence Under Section 468 I.P.C. which has been included in the F.I.R. inasmuch as Section 468 encompasses the offence described in Section 463 I.P.C. as mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr. P.C. Section 468 I.P.C. provides for punishment for commission of forgery with the intention that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Section 463 I.P.C. defines forgery. Evidently therefore an offence punishable under Section 468 is an offence described in Section 463. Since Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr. P.C. applies to 'any offence described in Section 463 I.P.C, Section 468 I.P.C. which provides for punishment for commission of forgery with a particular intention, obviously comes within the ambit of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr. P.C. as answering an offence described in Section 463 I.P.C. mentioned therein. (For supporting views see., S. L. Goswami v. M. P. High Court, ; Dina Nath v. Hansraj, 1974 Cr LJ 198). Evidently therefore if an offence Under Section 468 I, P.C. has been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in any income tax proceeding before the income tax assessment authority the offender can be brought to book for that on the basis of a complaint by the appropriate income tax authority Under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr. P.C. and not through any separate police investigation at the instance of police.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ram Swarup Prosad vs State Of West Bengal on 22 December, 1997

In this connection, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.L.Goswami v. Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 467 may be referred to. In the said decision, it has been held that an offence under section 466 of the Penal Code is an offence which falls within the description of section .463 and is covered by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 195 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure which corresponds to sub-section (1)(b)(ii) of the present Code. Following this decision of the Supreme Court, it can be said that section 463 of the Indian Penal Code which defines forgery as a general term is referred to in sub-section (1)(b)(ii) in a comprehensive sense so as to embrace all species of forgery. In other words, even though sections 465. 466. 467. 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code are not explicitly specified in subsection (1) (b)[ii). the offences punishable under those sections can also be said to be the offences which are covered by the expression "any offence described in section 463".
Calcutta High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of West Bengal on 22 December, 1997

In this connexion, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.L.Goswamt v. Madhya Pradesh High Court may be referred to. In the said decision, it has been held that an offence under section 466 of the Penal Code is an offence which falls within the description of section 463 and is covered by clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 195 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure which corresponds to sub section (i)(b)(ii) of the present Code. Following this decision of the Supreme Court, it can be said that section 463 of the Indian Penal Code which defines forgery as a general term is referred to in sub section (i)(b)(ii) in a comprehensive sense so as to embrace all species of forgery. In other words, even though sections 465, 466, 467, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code are not explicitly specified in sub section (1)(b)(ii), the offences punishable under those sections can also be said to be the offences which are covered by the expression "any offence described in section 463".
Calcutta High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoranjan Khatua vs State Of Orissa on 20 March, 1989

In AIR 1983 SC 1053 : (1983 Cri LJ 1599), Gopalakrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy, the principle laid down in the case of Dr. S. L. Goswami v. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (supra) was approved and although one of the offences referred to in that case was under Section 467, I.P.C. (in this, case Section 466, I.P.C.), it was held that Section 467 is in respect of an offence described in Section 463. Once it is accepted that Section 463 defines forgery and S 467 punishes forgery of a particular category, the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code would immediately be attracted and on the basis that the offence punishable under Section 467 is an offence described in Section 463, I.P.C., in the absence of a complaint by the Court the prosecution would not be maintainable. In view of the aforesaid principles, law is well settled that cognizance for commission of offences under Sections 466 and 471, I.P.C. cannot be taken by Court except on the complaint in writing of a Court or some other court to which that Court is subordinate in accordance with the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code. In this case, no complaint was made against the petitioner for having committed offences under Sections 466 and 471, I.P.C. Cognizance was taken on submission of charge-sheet by the police. Therefore, the order of cognizance is unsustainable for these two offences as being barred by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code.
Orissa High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Harbans Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 7 May, 1986

In view of the wholly settled state of law declared by the Supreme Court under Section 195(1)(c) of the old Code, all that now remains is to examine the marginal change in the language of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code by deleting the words "by a party to any proceeding in any Court.". There is no indication that in doing so, whilst enacting the new Code, Parliament intended to make any radical change or departure from the settled law earlier. It is well settled that the legislature is presumed to know the existing state of law when making a change or amendment in the statute. The Statements of Objects and Reasons and the detailed notes on clauses of the Cr. P.C. 1973, give no indication of materially altering or overriding the earlier precedential construction of the predecessor provision. It, therefore, seems inapt to read more into the marginal change than the plain words there of would indicate. To my mind the deletion of the words 'by a party to any proceeding in any court' in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code has only the effect of enlarging the protection envisaged by the section to the witnesses, scribes, attestors, etc., of the document with regard to which the offence has been committed. This class of persons would now be equally within the ambit of the provision irrespective of the fact whether they are parties to the proceedings or not. Apart from this, I am unable to read any other meaningful change brought in the law in this context. All other considerations authoritatively noticed in the precedents referred to above with regard to the larger principles of interpretation, the aptness of the narrower construction, the other provisions of the Code including Section 476, etc., remain as much applicable and relevant to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code as they were to its predecessor provision. Consequently, the binding precedent applicable to the earlier provisions of Section 195(1)(c) of the old Code would be equally attracted in the case of the present provision subject to the marginal change noticed above.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Inuganti Venkata Ramana Murthy And Ors. vs Tentu Sanyasi Naidu And Anr. on 1 September, 1992

7. Apart from that the language of Sec .195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. is very significant, while referring to Sections 471,475 and 476 IPC it used the word "punishable" but in the case of Section 463 IPC the words used are the "offence described in Section 463". The Supreme Court in its decision in S.L. Goswami v. M.P. High Court, held that an offence under Section 466 IPC is an offence which falls within the description of Section 463 I.P.C. and consequently attracted by provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. There is another decision of Allahabad High Court in Rampal Singh v. State of U.P., 1982 Crl.L.J. 424. There it was observed as follows:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next