Forgery and false evidence bars do not apply where only a copy is produced and statutory conditions remain unmet.

Fabrication of false evidence was treated as complete when the forged document was created, so the bar on complaints for offences committed in or in relation to a court proceeding did not apply merely because the document was later intended for judicial use. Prosecution for forgery and using a forged document as genuine was also not barred where only a certified copy, not the forged original, was produced before the Tribunal. Section 479A did not apply because its statutory preconditions were not met, and the absence of a preliminary enquiry did not vitiate the complaint. The conviction and sentences were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint for the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code was barred by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (ii) Whether prosecution for offences under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was barred by Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 because only a certified copy of the forged document was produced before the Tribunal; (iii) Whether Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 barred the prosecution in the absence of a finding by the Tribunal that prosecution was expedient; (iv) Whether absence of an enquiry under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiated the complaint and whether the sentence called for interference.

Issue: Whether the complaint for the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code was barred by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: The bar under Section 195(1)(b) applies only where the offence is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in court. Fabrication of a false document intended to be used in judicial proceedings is complete when the fabrication is completed, and it does not become an offence committed in or in relation to a court proceeding merely because the document is later intended for use. Actual use of the document is not an ingredient of Section 193, though such use may attract other provisions.

Conclusion: The complaint for the offence under Section 193 was not incompetent and was not barred by Section 195(1)(b).

Issue: Whether prosecution for offences under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was barred by Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 because only a certified copy of the forged document was produced before the Tribunal.

Analysis: Section 195(1)(c) is attracted only when the forged document itself is produced or given in evidence in court. A copy of a forged document stands on a different footing. The legal bar does not extend to prosecution for forgery or for using a forged document as genuine where the original forged document was not produced before the Tribunal, even though a certified copy was used in the proceedings.

Conclusion: The prosecution for offences under Sections 465 and 471 was not barred by Section 195(1)(c).

Issue: Whether Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 barred the prosecution in the absence of a finding by the Tribunal that prosecution was expedient.

Analysis: Section 479A is directed to intentional fabrication of false evidence by a witness for use in a judicial proceeding. Where the accused did not appear as a witness and the relevant application before the Tribunal was withdrawn, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to form the requisite opinion or record the statutory finding. The statutory precondition for the bar was therefore absent.

Conclusion: Section 479A did not bar the prosecution.

Issue: Whether absence of an enquiry under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiated the complaint and whether the sentence called for interference.

Analysis: The absence of a preliminary enquiry under Section 476 does not by itself vitiate criminal proceedings, and on the facts no such enquiry was necessary. The sentence was not shown to be excessive in light of the nature of the offences and did not justify interference.

Conclusion: No infirmity arose from the absence of an enquiry under Section 476, and the sentence was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentences were sustained in revision, and no ground for interference was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Fabrication of false evidence is complete upon creation of the forged document, and the bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only where the forged document itself is produced or given in evidence in court; production of a copy does not attract that bar, and Section 479A applies only within its own statutory preconditions.

---