1965 (8) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and applicability of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Distinction between offenses under Sections 465/471 and Sections 193/196 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Evaluation of Dr. Dutt's conduct under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Applicability of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with prosecutions for contempt of lawful authority of public servants and certain offenses against public justice. It specifies that certain offenses, including those under Sections 193 to 196, 199, and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), require a complaint in writing by the court concerned before cognizance can be taken. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 195 cannot be evaded by charging a person with an offense not covered by it and then convicting them of an offense that is covered by it. The Court referred to previous judgments, stating that the test for evasion is whether the facts primarily disclose an offense for which a court complaint is required.

2. Distinction Between Offenses Under Sections 465/471 and Sections 193/196 of the Indian Penal Code:
Sections 465 and 471 IPC deal with forgery and using a forged document as genuine, respectively. These sections do not require a complaint by the court for prosecution. Sections 193 and 196 IPC, on the other hand, deal with giving or fabricating false evidence and using evidence known to be false, respectively, and require a court complaint for prosecution. The Court noted that the prosecution chose to charge Dr. Dutt under Sections 465/471 IPC to bypass the requirement of a court complaint, which is necessary for offenses under Sections 193/196 IPC.

3. Evaluation of Dr. Dutt's Conduct Under the Relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code:
The Court analyzed whether Dr. Dutt's actions constituted offenses under Sections 465/471 IPC or Sections 193/196 IPC. The Court found that Dr. Dutt did not make a false document as defined under Section 464 IPC, and there was no evidence that he forged the diploma himself. The Court also noted that Dr. Dutt did not act dishonestly or fraudulently as defined under Sections 24 and 25 IPC, as his conduct did not involve wrongful gain or loss. However, the Court found that Dr. Dutt's conduct was corrupt under Section 196 IPC, as he used the diploma intending to deceive the court into forming an erroneous opinion about his qualifications and testimony. The Court concluded that Dr. Dutt's actions fell within the ambit of Sections 192 and 196 IPC, which require a court complaint for prosecution.

Conclusion:
The Court held that the prosecution of Dr. Dutt under Sections 465/471 IPC was an attempt to bypass the requirement of a court complaint under Section 195 CrPC for offenses under Sections 193/196 IPC. The Court allowed the appeal, stating that the prosecution against Dr. Dutt could not proceed without a complaint in writing by the court concerned. The appeal was thus allowed, and the prosecution under Sections 465/471 IPC was quashed.