9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (8) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ict Government counsel who was assisted by one Mr. Shyam Narain, Deputy Superintendent, Police (C.I.D.) Lucknow. Mr. Shyam Narain earlier had deposed himself as an expert witness for the prosecution. Dr. Dutt's testimony ran counter to the testimony of Mr. Shyam Narain and the credentials of Dr. Dutt were challenged. The Judge asked Dr. Dutt to produce all his academic diplomas and certificates for his inspection. Dr. Dutt produced the aforesaid diploma and it was taken on file as Ex. P-71 to-ether with a statement which was marked Ex. P-72. The Sessions Judge pronounced judgment on October 29, 1957 acquitting Matadin and the other accused. He passed strictures on the prosecution and did not accept the evidence of Mr. Shyam Narain. Government did not appeal against the acquittal and that matter ended there. On November 12, 1957 prosecution applied to the Session Judge under s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the prosecution of Dr. Dutt under s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code. It was stated in the application that "the defence witness No. 3 Dr. S. Dutt has committed forgery of certain diploma produced in this Hon'ble Court during the course of his evidence and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s with prosecutions for contempt of lawful authority of public servants and provides inter alia that prosecutions for certain offences against public justice shall not be taken cognizance of except on the complaint in writing of a court before which the offence is committed or of Some other court to which that court is subordinate. These offences are enumerated in the section and among them are ss. 193 to 196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 195 further provides that prosecution for any offence of forgery described in s. 463 or of using a forged document as genuine punishable under s. 471, s. 475 or s. 476 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a court by a party requires a complaint in writing of the court. The gist of the provision is that offences of for-cry of a document as described in s. 463 I.P.C. and of using such forged documents, if produced or given in evidence by a person other than a party to a proceeding in a court, do not require a complaint in writing of the court concerned, but Prosecution in respect of offences under ss. 193 to 196, 199 and 200 (among others) committed in a judicial proceeding by a person ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party. His contention, however, is that the offence, if any, was not under s. 465 nor under s. 471, but one under s. 193 or 196, Indian Penal Code for which the procedure of s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was imperative. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the ambit of the provisions which are set in opposition by the parties. Sections 465 and 471 occur in Chapter XVIII -of the Indian Penal Code which deals with offences relating to documents and to Property Marks and consists of thirty-one sections. It is divided into three parts. We are not concerned with the last two parts which deal with counterfeiting of Property and other Marks and currency-notes and Bank-notes. The first part deals inter alia with forgery, making of false documents and their use. Sections 193 and 196 occur in Chapter XI which deals with false evidence and offences against public justice. Section 193 punishes the giving or fabricating of false evidence and section 196 punishes the using of evidence known to be false. Which of these two groups of sections applies here is the question; on that depends whether the court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. Section 463 of the Penal Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn to be false or believed to be false or not believed to be true. In this sense Dr. Dutt, when he claimed to hold a diploma, if he did not, may be said to have given false evidence. Section 192 then defines compendiously the offence of fabricating false evidence. The portion which Mr. Chari claims applies here may be set out : "Whoever causes any circumstance to exist .... or makes any document containing a false statement intending that such circumstance or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding ........ and that such circumstance or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said to fabricate false evidence." The offence of intentionally giving false -evidence described in s. 191 or of fabricating false evidence described in s. 192 is punishable under s. 193 with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine, if the -evidence is given or fabricated to be used in any stage of judicial proceeding. Section 196 next provides: " 196. Whoever corruptl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the relevancy of his evidence. The case was thus covered by s. 192. When Dr. Dutt deposed, let us assume falsely about his training, he committed an offence under s.193. Again, when Dr. Dutt used the diploma as genuine his conduct was corrupt, whether or not it was dishonest or fraudulent. The word "corrupt" does not necessarily include an. element of bribe taking. It is used in a much larger sense as denoting conduct which is morally unsound or debased. The word "corrupt" has been judicially construed in several cases but we refer here to two cases only. In Emperor v. Rana Nana(I.L.R.. 46 Bom. 317.) Chief Justice Macleod considered the word to be of wider import than the words fraudulently or dishonestly and did not confine it to the taking, of bribes or cases of bribery. In Bibkhranjan Gupta v. The King, (I.L.R. [1949] 2 Cal. 440.) Mr. Justice Sen dealt at length with this word. He was contrasting s. 196 with s. 471 and observed that the word corruptly was not synonymous with dishonestly or fraudulently but was much wider. According to him it even included conduct which was neither fraudulent nor dishonest if it was otherwise blameworthy or improper. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal of trouble as the rulings show. It may be pointed out that in the Larceny Act of 1.861 and in the Companies Act of 1862 in England the expression was "with intent to deceive or defraud", while in the Forgery Acts the words "with intent to defraud" alone were used. The reason was that documents were divided into two : public documents and private documents. In the case of public documents it was enough if the intention was merely to deceive but in the case of private documents such an intention was not considered sufficient but "an intent to defraud" was required. The distinction between the two expressions was made by Lord Buckley (then Buckley J) in a winding up case as follows : ". . . . To deceive is, I apprehend, to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false, and which the person practising the deceit knows or believes to be false. To defraud is to deprive by deceit : it is by deceit to induce a man to act to his injury. More tersely it may be put, that to deceive is by falsehood to induce a state of mind; to defraud is by deceit to induce a course of action. (In re London and Globe Finance Corp. Ltd (1903) 1 ch. 728). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, that is to say, with intent to defraud. His intention was not to cause any one to act to his disadvantage because he did not bring the diploma voluntarily but under orders of the court. He did not, therefore, have the intent to cause voluntarily, a course of conduct in any person to that person's disadvantage. In other words, though he might have intended a deception he did not intend defrauding. His conduct was perhaps corrupt in the larger sense for he intended that the Sessions Judge should form an erroneous opinion about him and his testimony, as he continued to claim the document as genuine. We are, therefore, satisfied that Dr. Dutt's conduct does not come within s. 471. On the other hand, it falls within s. 196 which casts its net wider in the interest of the purity of administration of justice. It may be noted that an offence under s. 196 of the Penal Code is a far more serious offence than the offence under ss. 465/471. The former is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine while the latter is punishable with imprisonment up to two years or with fine. In this connection we may again recall the words of this Court which were put in the forefront ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
