9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 982 - SC - Indian LawsFabricating false deed of agreement for sale for the purpose of being shielded from legal action in the disproportionate assets case - seizure of currency in addition to jewellery and property papers - assets disproportionate to the Appellant s known sources of income - Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - HELD THAT - In the present case, the allegation against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 is that they colluded with Appellant/Accused No. 1 to create a false sale deed, and gave false explanation of escrow arrangement amongst the three parties, to justify how the seized currency came to be in the Appellant s possession. This was done to exonerate the Appellant/Accused No. 1 and recover the seized currency at the stage of investigation itself, which is deemed to be a stage of a judicial proceeding under Explanation 2 of Section 193. Had the genuineness of the sale deed been accepted, the Respondent may have erroneously opined that the seized currency belonged to Accused No. 2, and consequently abandoned proceedings under Section 13(1)(e), PC Act against the Appellant. Therefore Section 193, IPC is squarely applicable to the allegations at hand. Whether an offence under Section 193, IPC committed at the stage of investigation, prior to production of the false evidence before the Trial Court by a person who is not yet party to proceedings before the Trial Court, is an offence in relation to a proceeding in any court under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC? - HELD THAT - The presence of in relation to under Section 195(1)(b)(i) means that Iqbal Singh Marwah would not have blanket application to every case where a complaint is lodged in respect of an offence specified under that Section. However, on the facts of Bandekar Brothers, this was not a situation in which the offence complained of did not have a reasonably close nexus with the court proceedings. The offence of giving false evidence was committed by the respondents, who were party to the court proceedings, for the purpose of leading the Court to form an erroneous opinion on a point material to the result of the proceedings. Hence it could be said that though the offence was not committed during the course of the court proceedings, it was certainly committed in relation to such proceedings. The construction of the words in relation to must be controlled by the overarching principle applicable to Section 195(1)(b), CrPC as stated in PATEL LALJIBHAI SOMABHAI VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT 1971 (5) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT and SACHIDA NAND SINGH AND ANR. VERSUS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 1998 (2) TMI 583 - SUPREME COURT , which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in IQBAL SINGH MARWAH ANR. VERSUS MEENAKSHI MARWAH ANR. 2005 (3) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT . That is, even if the offence is committed prior to giving of the fabricated evidence in court, it must have a direct or reasonably close nexus with the court proceedings. In case the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) is applied to offences committed during the course of investigation, the Court may think it fit to wait till the completion of trial to evaluate whether a complaint should be made or not. Subsequently, the Court may be of the opinion that in the larger scheme of things the alleged fabrication of evidence during investigation has not had any material impact on the trial, and decline to initiate prosecution for the same. The investigation agency cannot be compelled to take a chance and wait for the trial court to form its opinion in each and every case Whether the words stage of a judicial proceeding under Explanation 2 to Section 193, IPC can be equated with proceeding in any court under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC? - HELD THAT - This Court has, in some instances, opined that where the law deems proceedings before a certain authority to be judicial proceedings , the same would be considered as proceedings in any court under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC. Therefore, if the offence under Section 193, IPC is committed before such an authority, the written complaint of that authority is mandatorily required for trial of the offence - in the present case, it is not the Trial Court but the Respondent authority/agency which has been directly impacted due to fabrication of evidence by the Appellants/accused. The Appellants intention was not to mislead the Trial Court, at least not at the first instance. Rather, their goal was to ensure that the Appellant/Accused No. 1 was cleared of wrongdoing at the stage of investigation itself. It was after being charged under Section 193, IPC, that the Appellants/accused reiterated the fictitious escrow arrangement story before the Trial Court so as to prove their innocence. Hence it cannot be said that the offence under Sections 120B read with 193, IPC was committed by the Appellants in relation to a proceeding in a court under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC. The questions of law stated in paragraph 6 (supra)stand answered against the Appellants/accused. Even on merits, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The High Court has rightly observed that the Appellant/Accused No. 1 had not raised the defence of holding the money in escrow for Accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the time of search conducted at his house on 24.01.2001. The supposed agreement of sale was also not produced - The stamp paper on which the sale deed was made was also proved to be illegal. Hence it is apparent that the Appellants/accused entered into an elaborate conspiracy and attempted to create a false circumstance of escrow transaction for the purpose of shielding Appellant/Accused No. 1 from prosecution. In fact, the High Court has shown great lenity by reducing the sentences awarded to the Appellants/accused in view of their advanced age and delay in completion of the trial. In view of the gravity of the offence, no further benefit can be granted to them in this regard. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to offences committed during the investigation stage. 2. Interpretation of "in relation to any proceeding in any Court" under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC. 3. Whether Explanation 2 to Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) equates "stage of a judicial proceeding" with "proceeding in any court" under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC to Offences Committed During the Investigation Stage: The Supreme Court examined whether Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC bars the lodging of a case by the investigating agency under Section 193 of the IPC for offences committed during the investigation stage. The Court noted that Section 195(1)(b)(i) creates a bar against taking cognizance of offences against the administration of justice to protect against baseless or vindictive prosecutions by private parties. However, it emphasized that the bar should not extend to cases where the offence was committed during the investigation stage, prior to the commencement of court proceedings. The Court concluded that the investigating agency is best placed to verify and prove whether such falsification has taken place, and thus, the requirement of a written complaint by the Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) in such scenarios would be impracticable. 2. Interpretation of "in relation to any proceeding in any Court" under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC: The Court discussed the phrase "in relation to any proceeding in any Court" under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and noted that this phrase makes the scope of Section 195(1)(b)(i) wider than Section 195(1)(b)(ii). However, it emphasized that the offence must have a direct or reasonably close nexus with the court proceedings. The Court referred to the decision in Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni and Others, which highlighted that the presence of "in relation to" under Section 195(1)(b)(i) means that the bar may apply to offences committed prior to the production of evidence before the Court, provided that such evidence is led by a person who is a party to the court proceedings for the purpose of leading the Court to form a certain opinion based on such evidence. 3. Whether Explanation 2 to Section 193 of the IPC Equates "Stage of a Judicial Proceeding" with "Proceeding in any Court" under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC: The Court considered Explanation 2 to Section 193 of the IPC, which deems an investigation preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice to be a "stage of a judicial proceeding." The Court clarified that the purpose of Explanation 2 is to ensure that a person who fabricates false evidence before an investigating authority does not escape penalty. However, it noted that whether the commission of such offence would require the complaint of a Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) would depend upon the authority before whom such false evidence is given. The Court concluded that the investigation conducted by the Respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) cannot be equated with a proceeding in a court of law under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC, though it is deemed to be a stage of a judicial proceeding under Section 193, IPC. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC does not bar prosecution by the investigating agency for offences punishable under Section 193, IPC, committed during the investigation stage, provided that the investigating agency has lodged the complaint or registered the case prior to the commencement of proceedings and production of such evidence before the trial court. The appeals were dismissed both on law and on merits, with the sentence awarded by the High Court to be set off against the period of imprisonment already undergone by the Appellants. The Appellants were directed to surrender within two weeks for serving out the rest of their sentence, if not already in custody.
|
