1931 (4) TMI 21 - HC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of CrPC Section 195(1)(c) on forged documents deemed not applicable

The court held that Section 195(1)(c) of the CrPC applies only to offenses committed by a party to a proceeding in relation to a document produced in that ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for requiring a court complaint before prosecuting for abetment of forgery.2. Interpretation of the term 'party to a proceeding' within the context of Section 195(1)(c).3. Relationship between Sections 195 and 476 of the CrPC regarding the filing of complaints by courts.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 195(1)(c) of the CrPC:The primary issue referred to the larger bench was whether Section 195(1)(c) necessitates a court complaint before prosecuting for abetment of forgery concerning specific documents (Exs. 4 to 7). The court examined the nature and history of these documents, which were allegedly forged in 1898 by Raja Kushal Pal Singh to establish a claim to the Kotla Estate. The documents were never used in any legal proceeding until they were attempted to be introduced in a suit for partition in 1922.2. Interpretation of 'Party to a Proceeding':The court deliberated on the meaning of 'party to a proceeding' under Section 195(1)(c). It considered whether this term includes a person who commits an offense before becoming a party to a proceeding. The court concluded that the term 'party' must mean a party at the time of committing the offense. Therefore, an offense committed by a person who later becomes a party to a proceeding does not fall within the purview of Section 195(1)(c). This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent private complaints in such cases, ensuring that only the court can initiate prosecution.3. Relationship Between Sections 195 and 476 of the CrPC:The court emphasized the need to read Sections 195 and 476 together. Section 476 provides the procedure for a court to file a complaint for offenses mentioned in Section 195. The court rejected the argument that a court could file a complaint outside the provisions of Section 476, stating that a court, being a creature of law, must act within the legal framework. The court also noted that allowing complaints outside Section 476 would eliminate the appellate review provided for in Section 476, which is crucial for ensuring judicial oversight.Conclusion:The court held that Section 195(1)(c) applies only to offenses committed by a party to a proceeding in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding. Since the documents in question were forged long before the parties became involved in the legal proceedings, Section 195(1)(c) does not apply. Consequently, the court answered the referred question in the negative, indicating that a court complaint was not necessary for prosecuting the alleged forgery in this case.Concurring Opinions:Both Young, J., and King, J., concurred with the judgment and had nothing to add, thereby affirming the interpretation and conclusions reached.