2005 (3) TMI 750 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis? Whether the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents?

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
2. Applicability of bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. on private complaints.
3. Conflict of opinion between previous Supreme Court decisions in Surjit Singh vs. Balbir Singh and Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar.
4. Procedural requirements for filing complaints under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
5. Impact on administration of justice and potential misuse of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.:
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of the phrase "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court" in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The appellants argued that once a document is produced or given in evidence in court, private prosecution is barred unless the court itself files a complaint. The respondents contended that the bar applies only if the offence is committed after the document is produced in court.

2. Applicability of Bar on Private Complaints:
The appellants relied on Surjit Singh vs. Balbir Singh, which suggested that the bar applies once the document is produced in court. Conversely, Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar held that the bar does not apply if the forgery occurred before the document was produced in court. The court examined the statutory scheme and the object of Section 195 Cr.P.C., concluding that the bar applies only to offences committed after the document is produced or given in evidence in court.

3. Conflict of Opinion Between Previous Decisions:
The court acknowledged the conflicting opinions in Surjit Singh and Sachida Nand Singh. In Surjit Singh, it was held that the bar applies once the document is produced in court, while Sachida Nand Singh held that the bar applies only if the forgery occurs after the document is produced in court. The court sided with the interpretation in Sachida Nand Singh, emphasizing the need to avoid rendering victims remedyless and preventing misuse of the provision.

4. Procedural Requirements for Filing Complaints Under Section 340 Cr.P.C.:
Section 340 Cr.P.C. outlines the procedure for courts to file complaints regarding offences affecting the administration of justice. The court emphasized that the decision to file a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be based on the impact on the administration of justice rather than the magnitude of injury to the individual. The court also highlighted the potential delays in prosecution if the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is interpreted broadly.

5. Impact on Administration of Justice and Potential Misuse:
The court noted that an enlarged interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) could lead to misuse, where individuals could avoid prosecution by simply filing forged documents in court. The court stressed the importance of ensuring that victims of forgery have a remedy and that the administration of justice is not hindered by procedural technicalities. The court also addressed concerns about conflicting findings between civil and criminal courts, noting that different standards of proof apply in each.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. applies only to offences committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. The bar does not apply to offences committed before the document is produced in court. Consequently, the appeal challenging the applicability of the bar was dismissed, and the decision in Sachida Nand Singh was upheld as the correct interpretation. The court also allowed the appeal in the related case, setting aside the High Court's decision and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

← Previous Next →