(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2009
Prabhakar s/o. Ramchandra Patki .. Petitioner
Age. 53 years, Occ. Service as Chief
Officer, Municipal Council, Vengurla,
Tal. Vengurla, Dist. Sindhudurg.
ig Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
2. Yadavrao s/o. Mukundrao Nemaniwar
Age. 66 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Yelmapura, Tal. Kinwat,
Dist. Nanded.
Shri P.V. Mandlik, Sr. Advocate i/b. Adv. Shri A.S. Gandhi,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J.
DATED : 28.01.2010
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. This is a writ petition preferred by the original
accused/revision petitioner against whom the order of
issuance of process was passed by the learned Judicial
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
(2)
Magistrate, First Class, Kinwat in S.C.C. No. 81 of 2008 for
committing offences punishable under sections 193 and 199 of
the Indian Penal Code (For short “I.P.C.”). Said order dated
01.08.2008 is further confirmed in Criminal Revision No. 163
of 2008 decided on 14.08.2009 by the Sessions Judge, Nanded.
2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this petition
may be stated as below :-
. Present respondent No.2 – Yadavrao Nemaniwar was
the complainant. It is stated that the complainant/respondent
No.2 was Vice President of the Municipal Council, Kinwat;
whereas the petitioner/accused was working as a Chief Officer
of the Municipal Council, Kinwat between March, 2006 to
August, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred as
Chief Officer to Vengurla, Dist. Sindhudurg. Regular Civil
Suit No. 48 of 2007 was filed by Samgayani – daughter of
Yadavrao Nemaniwar (complainant/respondent No.2) against the
present petitioner seeking perpetual injunction restraining
him from demolishing property of said Samgayani. The suit
was fixed on 26.07.2007 for filing written statement.
However, since the petitioner/defendant in that suit was
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
(3)
absent, an order was passed to proceed the suit without
written statement. Thereafter, on 30.07.2007, the petitioner
filed application Exh.14 in Regular Civil Suit No. 48 of 2007
along with affidavit dated 30.07.2007 (Exh.15) stating
therein that on 26.07.2007, he could not file written
statement as he was at Aurangabad to attend High Court and
prayed for setting aside the order of proceeding the suit
without written statement passed on 26.07.2007. The Court
was pleased to set aside the order of proceeding the suit
without written statement. It is stated that the statement
that on 26.07.2007 the petitioner was at Aurangabad for
attending High Court, was a false statement and in the
circumstances he committed the offences.
3. The learned Magistrate recorded verification of
present respondent No.2 on 01.08.2008 and passed order as
follows :-
“The complainant has made out prima facie
case to issue process u/s 193 and 199 of IPC.
Hence issue process against accused u/s 193 & 199
of IPC.”
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
(4)
4. Present petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 163
of 2008 in the Sessions Court, Nanded, challenging the order
of issuance of process. The main challenge was that
respondent No.2 had no locus standi and cognizance could not
have been taken of the offence, as the complaint was not
filed as required by section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The learned Sessions Judge
relying upon case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and anr. V/s.
Meenakshi Marwah and ors, AIR 2005, S.C. 2119, rejected the
Criminal Revision. Against the same this writ petition is
filed.
5. Heard Sr. Advocate Shri P.V. Mandlik i/b. Adv. Shri
A.S. Gandhi for the petitioner, A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale for
respondent No.1/State and Adv. Shri S.M. Vibhute for
respondent No.2.
6. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties,
the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.
7. In this case what is alleged is that in the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
(5)
application Exh.14 and affidavit Exh.15, copies of which are
enclosed with the petition, it is falsely mentioned by the
petitioner that on 26.07.2007, which was earlier date fixed,
he could not file written statement as he was at Aurangabad,
to attend High Court. According to respondent No.2, this was
false statement and therefore offences under sections 193 and
199 of the I.P.C. are committed. Order on application Exh.14
clearly shows that the Court was pleased to set aside the
order of “No W.S.” and written statement was accepted.
Section 193 and 199 of the I.P.C. are as follows:-
“S.193. Whoever intentionally gives false
evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or
fabricates false evidence for the purpose of beingused in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine;
and whoever intentionally gives or
fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extent to three years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
S.199. Whoever, in any declaration made or
subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of
Justice, or any public servant or other person, is
bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence
of any fact, makes any statement which is false,
and which he either knows or believes to be false::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
(6)or does not believe to be true, touching any point
material to the object for which the declaration ismade or used shall be punished in the same manner
as if he gave false evidence.”
8. It is also argued by Sr. Adv. Shri Mandlik that in
this case, the stage was of acceptance of written statement
and no evidence was given or recorded. The affidavit was
just in support of Exh.14 and in strict sense it was not a
part of oral evidence or deposition and therefore section 193
of the I.P.C. is not attracted. It is not said that the
affidavit is not signed by the petitioner or the petitioner
signed the affidavit or application in the name of some one
else. It is not a case of giving false evidence or
fabricating false evidence. So, it is argued that section
193 of the I.P.C. is not attracted. I may refer to section
464 of I.P.C. and reproduce it for ready reference to show
that what is meant by making false document :-
“S.464. Making a false document. – A
person is said to make a false document or false
electronic record –
First.- Who dishonestly or fraudulently –
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a
document or part of a document;
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
(7)
(b) makes or transmit any electronic
record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature or
any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution
of a document or the authenticity of the electronic
signature, with the intention of causing it to be
believed that such document or part of document,
electronic record or electronic signature was made,signed, sealed executed, transmitted or affixed by
or by the authority of a person by whom or by whoseauthority he knows that it was not made, signed,
sealed, executed or affixed; orSecondly – Who, without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or
otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record
in any material part thereof, after it has been
made, executed or affixed with electronic signature
either by himself or by any other person, whethersuch person be living or dead at the time of such
alteration; orThirdly – Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any
person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or
an electronic record to affix his electronicsignature or any electronic record knowing that such
person by reason of unsoundness of mind or
intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception
practised upon him, he does not know the contents of
the document or electronic record or the nature of
the alteration.”
. So, it is argued and I agree that offence under
section 193 of I.P.C. is not made out.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
(8)
9. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 stated
that offence under section 199 of I.P.C. is committed because
false declaration was made in the affidavit that the
petitioner was at Aurangabad and therefore he could not file
written statement on 26.07.2007. As per section 199 of
I.P.C. the declaration made or subscribed to the accused is
to be received as evidence of any fact and in that angle the
affidavit was accepted in as much as the Court believed the
statement made by the petitioner that he had been to
Aurangabad on 26.07.2009 and as such was unable to file
written statement. So, prima facie we can say that there is
the material for issuing process for the offence punishable
under section 199 of I.P.C., though the petitioner is very
much disputing the allegation that it was false affidavit.
The main question is whether the Court could have taken
cognizance of offence punishable under section 193 or 199 of
I.P.C., in view of Section 195 of Cr.P.C.. I quote section
195 (1) of Cr.P.C., which is as under :-
“195 (1) No Court shall take cognizance –
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under
sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), or::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
(9)
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to
commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit
such offence, except on the complaint in writing of
the public servant concerned or of some other public
servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under
any of the following sections of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both
inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive)and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been
committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding inany Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section
463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 orsection 476, of the said Code, 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, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to
commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of,any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-
clause (ii),except on the complaint in writing of that
Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court
may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some
other Court to which that Court is subordinate. x x
x x x x x x”
10. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 Shri
Vibhute drew my attention to the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah
(Supra). In that case as para 2 indicates the Court was
called upon to resolve conflict of opinion between two
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
( 10 )
decisions of the Supreme Court, each rendered by Bench of
three Judges in Surjit Singh V/s. Balbir singh, 1996 (3) SCC
533 and Sachida Nand Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1998 (2) SCC
493, regarding interpretation of section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of
Cr.P.C. As stated in para 5 of Iqbal Singh Marwah (Supra)
the principal controversy revolves round the interpretation
of the expression ‘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’ occurring in clause
(b) (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 195 Cr.P.C.
11. In the case of Surjit Singh (Supra) it is observed
that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the
foundation of forgery, if produced before the Court or given
in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under section 195
(1) (b) (ii) gets attracted and the criminal court is
prohibited from taking cognizance of offence unless a
complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed
under section 340 of the Code by or on behalf of the Court.
The object thereby is to preserve purity of the
administration of justice and to allow the parties to adduce
evidence in proof of certain documents without being
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
( 11 )
compelled or intimidated to proceed with the judicial
process.
12. In the case of Sachida Nand Singh (Supra), scope
envisaged by section 340 (1) of the Code to ascertain whether
any offence affecting administration of justice has been
committed in respect of a document produced in Court or given
in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words,
the offence should have been committed during the time when
the document was in custodia legis. In para 6 of the said
case following observations are made :-
“6. On a plain reading clause (b)(ii) of
sub-section (1) of Section 195 is capable of two
interpretations. One possible interpretation is
that when an offence described in Section 463 or
punishable under Section 471, Section 475 orSection 476 IPC is alleged to have been committed
in respect of a document which is subsequently
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in
any Court, a complaint by the Court would be
necessary. The other possible interpretation is
that when a document has been produced or given inevidence in a proceeding in any Court and
thereafter an offence described as aforesaid is
committed in respect thereof, a complaint by the
Court would be necessary. On this interpretation if
the offence as described in the Section is
committed prior to production or giving in evidence
of the document in Court, no complaint by Court
would be necessary and a private complaint would be::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:37 :::
( 12 )maintainable. The question which requires
consideration is which of the two interpretationsshould be accepted having regard to the scheme of
the Act and object sought to be achieved.”
13. After considering the entire position including
earlier case-laws, the Supreme Court observed in para 25 of
the said case as under:-
“25. In view of the discussion made
above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand
Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken
therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offencesenumerated 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.”
. Thus it is abundantly clear from above said
discussion that the Court was discussing and interpreting
section 195 (1) (b) (ii), particularly 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’.
14. The learned advocate Shri Vibhute argued that in
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:38 :::
( 13 )
this case the affidavit was prepared and then filed in the
Court and therefore there is no bar in view of law laid down
in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (Supra). Same line of
argument was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded
in his judgment. If we consider section 195 (1) (b) (i),
which is reproduced earlier, we do not find 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’. It says that no Court shall take cognizance of any
offence punishable under section 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to
211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to
have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in
any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court
or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in
writing in this behalf or of some other Court to which that
Court is sub-ordinate. In this case, question is not when
the affidavit was signed or completed, question is not when
the application was signed, whether it was signed inside the
Court or outside the Court. Since the application Exh.14 and
affidavit Exh.15 are filed in civil proceedings and it is
alleged that the offence is committed in or in relation to
making false statement during the course of civil
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:38 :::
( 14 )
proceedings, in my considered opinion, bar of section 195 (1)
(b) (i) of Cr.P.C. is attracted and therefore this writ
petition must succeed.
15. In the result, the order of issuance of process
passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded, on
01.08.2008 in S.C.C. No. 81 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set
aside. Similarly, the order passed by the Sessions Court in
Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2008 dated 14.08.2009 stands set
aside.
16. The Criminal Writ petition is accordingly allowed
and rule made absolute.
[P.R. BORKAR,J.]
snk/2010/JAN10/crwp849.09
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:33:38 :::
