1971 (5) TMI 75 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court ruling: Procedure for prosecuting document forgery clarified

The Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 471 I.P.C. falls within the prohibition of Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C., while the offence under ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C. to cases involving forged documents produced in judicial proceedings.2. Interpretation of the phrase 'committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court' under Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C.3. Interaction between Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C. and Section 476 Cr.P.C. regarding the initiation of prosecutions.4. Judicial opinions and precedents on the applicability and interpretation of Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C. to Cases Involving Forged Documents:The central issue in this appeal is the scope and effect of Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C. and its applicability to cases where a forged document is produced as evidence in a judicial proceeding. The appellant had instituted a civil suit based on a cheque alleged to be forged, which was dismissed. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against the appellant for offences under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C. The Sessions Judge referred the case to the High Court, which upheld the commitment order, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court noted the conflict of judicial opinion on this matter and decided to examine the statutory provisions and relevant case law.2. Interpretation of 'Committed by a Party to Any Proceeding in Any Court':The Court analyzed whether the phrase 'committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court' means that the offence must be committed by a person who is already a party to the proceeding or if it includes offences committed prior to becoming a party. The Court noted that judicial opinion is divided, with one view suggesting that the offence must be committed in the character of a party to the proceeding, while the other view allows for the offence to be committed prior to becoming a party, provided the document is produced in the proceeding. The Court preferred the strict construction, confining the prohibition to offences committed by a party in their capacity as such party.3. Interaction Between Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C. and Section 476 Cr.P.C.:The Court examined Section 476 Cr.P.C., which prescribes the procedure for cases mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) and (c). Section 476 allows a court to make a complaint if it is expedient in the interests of justice, either suo motu or on application. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind these provisions is to prevent frivolous and vexatious prosecutions by private parties and to ensure that the court, whose proceedings are affected by the offence, considers the expediency of prosecution. The Court concluded that the prohibition in Section 195(1)(c) should be confined to offences committed by a party in the character as such party.4. Judicial Opinions and Precedents:The Court reviewed various judicial decisions on the interpretation of Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C. The Allahabad High Court's Full Bench in Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh held that Section 195(1)(c) applies only to offences committed by a party as such to a proceeding. Other decisions, such as those from the Gujarat High Court, had differing views. The Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning of the Allahabad Full Bench, emphasizing the legislative intent to prevent vexatious prosecutions and avoid conflicts between court findings.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the offence under Section 471 I.P.C. is covered by the prohibition in Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C., but the offence under Section 467 I.P.C. can be tried without a court complaint unless it is shown that the document was forged by a party to the proceeding in their capacity as such party. The appeal was allowed in part, and the lower court was directed to dispose of the case expeditiously.