TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure barred cognizance on a private complaint for using a forged document as genuine in a proceeding in court; (ii) Whether the same bar extended to forgery of the document under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code when the forgery was not shown to have been committed after the accused became a party to the proceeding.
Issue (i): Whether Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure barred cognizance on a private complaint for using a forged document as genuine in a proceeding in court.
Analysis: The prohibition in Section 195(1)(c) was read with Section 476 and the connected provisions dealing with complaints by courts. The decisive consideration was that the offence must have been committed by a party to the proceeding in that character, with a reasonably close nexus to the proceeding, so that the court whose process was affected can decide whether prosecution is expedient. The use of a forged document as genuine in the proceeding itself falls within that restriction.
Conclusion: Yes. Cognizance of the offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was barred without a complaint by the court.
Issue (ii): Whether the same bar extended to forgery of the document under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code when the forgery was not shown to have been committed after the accused became a party to the proceeding.
Analysis: The bar was confined to offences committed by a party to the proceeding in the character as such party. A forgery completed before the institution of the proceeding did not satisfy that requirement merely because the forged document was later produced or used in court. On that construction, the court retained jurisdiction to try the forgery charge unless the evidence showed that the document was forged after the suit began and by the party as such party.
Conclusion: No. The charge under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code was not barred unless the forgery was proved to have been committed after the proceeding commenced by a party thereto.
Final Conclusion: The statutory bar was applied to the use of the forged document in court, but not to forgery completed before the party status arose, leaving the appeal successful only in part.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 195(1)(c) bars private prosecution only for offences concerning documents produced in evidence when the offence is committed by a person in the character of a party to the proceeding; a forgery completed before that status is acquired is outside the bar, though use of the forged document in court remains covered.
TaxTMI 
