{"id":100083,"date":"1981-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2"},"modified":"2016-08-10T11:22:01","modified_gmt":"2016-08-10T05:52:01","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1417, \t\t 1981 SCR (2) 695<\/div>\n
Author: A Varadarajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Varadarajan, A. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHEMAREDDY ALIAS VEMAREDDY AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\nBENCH:\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR 1417\t\t  1981 SCR  (2) 695\n 1981 SCC  (2) 185\t  1981 SCALE  (1)206\n\n\nACT:\n     Code of  Criminal Procedure  1973,\t S.  195(1)(b)(i)  &\nIndian Penal  Code 1860.  Ss.  467,  193  and  114-Suit\t for\nredemption of  mortgage-Conspiracy  by\taccused\t to  deprive\ncomplainant of\tland-Sale  deed\t forged-Prosecution  without\nwritten complaint of Court-Maintainability.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Section  195(1)   (b)  (i)\t of  the  Code\tof  Criminal\nProcedure 1973\tprovides that no court shall take cognizance\nof  any\t  offence  punishable  under  any  of  the  sections\nenumerated therein (one of which is S. 193 I.P.C.) when such\noffence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation\nto, any\t proceeding in\tany court,  except  upon  a  written\ncomplaint from a Court.\n     The  prosecution  alleged\tthat  both  the\t respondents\nalongwith two  others conspired to cheat the complainant and\nto deprive him of certain lands by fabricating a sale deed.\n     The  complainants'\t  paternal   grand-uncle   mortgaged\ncertain lands  with possession\tto the\tfather of respondent\nNo. 1  for a  period of\t 20 years  with the  condition\tthat\npossession would  be surrendered  to  the  owner  after\t the\nexpiry of the period. The father of the complainant executed\na will bequeathing the aforesaid lands to him. The period of\n20 years having expired the complainant requested respondent\nNo. 1  to surrender  possession.  Respondent  No.  1  having\nfailed to  deliver possession,\tthe complainant filed a suit\nfor  redemption\t  of  the   mortgage.  Subsequent   to\t the\ninstitution of\tthe suit  the complainant  came to know that\nrespondent No.\t1 had  purchased the  lands in question from\nrespondent No.\t2 who  had impersonated the real owner, i.e.\nwife of the complainant's paternal grand-uncle. On inquiries\nmade in\t the office  of the  Sub-Registrar, the\t complainant\nlearnt that the sale deed had been registered on 10-11-1970.\nAfter obtaining\t a registration\t copy of  the sale  deed and\nascertaining that  respondent No.  2 had  no property of her\nown, the  complainant filed  a\tcriminal  complaint  in\t the\nCourt. After  investigation,  the  Sub-Inspector  of  police\nfiled a\t charge-sheet against  both the\t respondents and two\nothers for  having committed  offences under  sections 120B,\n193, 465,  468 and  420 read  with section  114\t I.P.C.\t The\nSessions Court to which only the respondents were committed,\nconvicted respondent  No. 1  under  section  467  read\twith\nsection 114  and section  193 I.P.C.  and respondent  No.  2\nunder section  467 I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment\nand fine.\n     In the  appeals, against their conviction and sentence,\nthe High  Court found that respondent No. 1 was guilty under\nsection 467  read with\tsection 114  and section 193 I.P.C.,\nbut acquitted  him on  the ground  that the complaint in the\ncriminal case  which ended  in the  conviction of  both\t the\nrespondents was\t filed by  a  private  individual  i.e.\t the\ncomplainant and\t not by a Civil Court. As regards respondent\nNo. 2 it found her to be guilty under section 467 I.P.C. but\nfinding\t that  she  forged  the\t document  independently  of\nrespondent No. 1 and\n696\nbeing an  illiterate woman  who had  merely  put  her  thumb\nimpression on the document to admit its execution before the\nSub-Registrar modified the sentence awarded to her\n     In the appeal to this Court.\n^\nHELD:\n     1(i) The  High Court  was not  right in  law in holding\nthat the  complaint was\t    totally not maintainable against\nrespondent No.\t1 in  view of the provisions of S. 195(1)(b)\nof the\tCode of\t Criminal Procedure  1973, and\tin not\tonly\nacquitting him\tof the offence under s. 467 read with s. 114\nI.P.C. but  also in finding that he has committed an offence\npunishable under section 193 I.P.C. [710H]\n     1(ii) The\tHigh Court  was justified  in coming  to the\nconclusion on  the evidence that respondent No. 1 was guilty\nunder section  467 read\t with section  114 I.P.C.  and\tthat\nrespondent No. 2 was guilty under section 467 I.P.C, [711A]\n     1(iii) The conviction of respondent No. 1 under section\n467 read  with section 114 I.P.C. and of respondent No. 2 of\n467 I.P.C. are confirmed. [711B]\n     2. S.  195(1)(b) of  the  Code  of\t Criminal  Procedure\nrequires that  the offence  under s.  193 I.P.C.  should  be\nalleged to  have been  committed in  or in  relation to, any\nproceeding in  any court, Since the forged sale deed was not\nproduced in evidence in any stage of the redemption suit, s.\n195(1)(b)  of\tthe  Code   of\tCriminal  Procedure  is\t not\nattracted. Therefore,  the  Magistrate\twho  committed,\t the\naccused to  the Sessions, could not have taken cognizance of\nany offence  under s.  193 I.P.C. so far as respondent No. 1\nis concerned.  The complaint  could have  been taken on file\nonly for an offence punishable under s. 467 read with s. 114\nI.P.C. so  far as that accused is concerned. No complaint by\nthe court for prosecuting respondent No. 1 for offence under\ns. 467\tread with s. 114 I.P.C. is therefore required and he\ncould be validly convicted for that offence on the complaint\ngiven by the private individual. [701E-G]\n     3. The  Legislature could\tnot have  intended to extend\nthe prohibition\t contained in  s. 195(1)(c)  Cr. P.C. to the\noffences mentioned  therein when  committed by\ta party to a\nproceeding in  that court  prior to his becoming such party.\n[708H]\n     4.\t In   cases,  where   in  the  course  of  the\tsame\ntransaction an\toffence for which no complaint by a Court is\nnecessary under\t section 195(1)(b)  of the  Code of Criminal\nProcedure, and\tan offence  for which a complaint of a court\nis necessary  under that  sub-section, are  committed, it is\nnot possible  to split\tup and\thold that the prosecution of\nthe accused  for the  offences not mentioned in s. 195(1)(b)\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld. [702G]\n     In the  instant case  the document forged by Respondent\nNo. 2  was the\tsale  deed  dated  10-11-70.  The  suit\t for\nredemption of the mortgage was filed by the complainant P.W.\n3 on  24-11-70. He  filed the complaint before the police on\n24-11-70 and  before the court subsequently on 15-12-70. The\nforged sale deed dated 10-11-70 was not produced in the suit\nfiled by  the complainant  for redemption  of the  mortgage.\n[703A]\n697\n     5. The offence of abetment of forgery was complete when\nthe forged  sale deed  dated 10-11-70 was registered. But no\noffence under  s.195(1)(b) of  Cr. P.C. was committed as the\nforged sale deed was not at all put in evidence at any stage\nin the redemption suit filed by the complainant. [710B]\n     In Re.  V. V.  L. Narasimhamurthy, [1955] A.I.R. Madras\n21 approved.\n     Vasudeo  Ramchandra  Joshi\t [1923]\t A.I.R.\t Bombay\t 105\ndisapproved.\n     In re.  Khanderao Yeshwant\t (1912) 14 Bombay Law Report\n362 &  Mahadev Yadneshwar  Joshi (1912) 14 Bombay Law Report\n715 distinguished.\n     Girija Nandini  Devi v. Bigendra Nandini Choudry [1967]\n1 S.C.R.  93 &\tPatel Laljibhai\t Somabhai v.  The  State  of\nGujarat<\/a> [1971] Supp. S.C.R. 834 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION :\t Criminal Appeal No.
\n341 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 19-4-1974\t of the\t Karnataka High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nAppeal Nos. 324 and 335 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     N. Nettar, and R. C. Kaushik for the Appellant.
\n     P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair for Respondent No. 1.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VARADARAJAN,J. This  appeal by  special leave  has been
\nfiled by  the State of\t Karnataka against the judgment of a
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tKarnataka  High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nAppeals Nos.  324 and  335 of  1973 against the acquittal of
\nHemareddy alias\t Vemareddy (A-1)  in Crl. A. No. 324 of 1973
\nand against  the order\tin Crl. A. No. 335 of 1973 modifying
\nthe sentence  awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Raichur
\nto Pyatal  Bhimakka (A-2)  in Sessions\tCase No.  25\/72. The
\nlearned Sessions  Judge convicted  Hemareddy alias Vemareddy
\nunder s.  467 read  with s. 114 and s. 193 Indian Penal Code
\nand sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a
\nfine of Rs. 500\/-, and in default to undergo R. I. for three
\nmonths under s. 467 read with s. 114 and to undergo R.I. for
\nsix months  and to  pay a fine of Rs. 200\/-and in default to
\nundergo R.I.  for one  month for  the offence  under s.\t 193
\nI.P.C. He  convicted Pyatal Bhimakka (A-2), the appellant in
\nCrl. A.\t No. 335 of 1973 before the High Court, under s. 467
\nI.P.C. and  sentenced her to undergo R.I. for six months and
\nto pay\ta fine\tof Rs.\t200\/- and in default to undergo R.I.
\nfor one\t month. Both  the accused  filed appeals  before the
\nHigh Court  against their  convictions and sentences awarded
\nto them by the learned Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     In Crl.  A. No.  324 of  1973 filed  by Hemareddy alias
\nVemareddy, the\tlearned Judges\theld that on the facts there
\ncould be no doubt
\n698<\/span>
\nthat he\t is guilty  under s. 467 read with s. 114 and s. 193
\nI.P.C. In  the appeal  filed by Pyatal Bhimakka, Crl. A. No.
\n335\/73, also the learned Judges found that there could be no
\ndoubt that  she is guilty under s. 467 I.P.C. They confirmed
\nthe conviction of Pyatal Bhimakka, observing that she forged
\nthe document  independently of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy but
\ntaking into  consideration the\tfact that Pyatal Bhimakka is
\nan illiterate  women who had been taken to the Office of the
\nSub-Registrar by  Hemareddy alias Vemareddy and asked to put
\nher thumb  impression to the document and to admit execution
\nof the\tdocument, which\t she did,  for which Hemareddy alias
\nVemareddy paid\ther a  sum of  Rs. 100\/-, the learned Judges
\nfelt that  the sentence\t awarded to  Pyatal Bhimakka  by the
\nlearned Sessions  Judge was  harsh  and\t that  the  ends  of
\njustice would  be met  by sentencing her to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for  one day,  which she  had already undergone
\nbefore she  was probably released on bail, and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.\t200\/- and  in default to suffer R.I. for a period of
\none week  and thus  modified the  sentence awarded to Pyatal
\nBhimakka accordingly.  The State  has filed  the  appeal  by
\nspecial leave also against this order modifying the sentence
\nawarded to Pyatal Bhimakka.\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned   Judges  of\t the  High  Court,  however,
\nacquitted Hemareddy  alias Vemareddy,  the appellant in Crl.
\nA. No. 324 of 1973 and set aside the sentence awarded to him
\nby the\tlearned\t Sessions  Judge  on  the  ground  that\t the
\ncomplaint in the criminal case which ended in the conviction
\nof both\t accused in  the Sessions  Court, was  filed by\t the
\nprivate individual  Narsappa Eliger,  P.W. 3  and not by the
\nCivil Court.  As stated earlier the Criminal Appeal has been
\nfiled by  the State against the acquittal of Hemareddy alias
\nVemareddy by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  necessary to  set out  briefly the\tfacts of the
\ncase. One  Narsappa is\tthe son\t of one Thimmaiah who had an
\nelder brother Nagappa Thimmaiah and Nagappa were the sons of
\none  Thayappa.\t Nagappa’s  wife   was\tone  Bhimakka  alias
\nBhieamma.  Thimaiaha  and  Nagappa  lived  for\tsometime  in
\nUnderaldoddi. Nagappa  purchased lands\tbearing Survey\tNos.
\n93, 94\tand 96\tin Underaldoodi.  Those lands  were  in\t the
\npossession and\tenjoyment of  Narsappa’s  father  Thimmaiah.
\nSubsequently, Nagappa  and his\twife left  Underaldoddi\t and
\nsettled down  in Alkur\tvillage. While Nagappa was living in
\nAlkur  village,\t  he  mortgaged\t the  aforesaid\t lands\twith
\npossession to  one Kurbar  Bhimayya, the father of Hemareddy
\nalias  Vemareddy,   A-1.  According  to\t the  terms  of\t the
\nmortgage, Kurbar  Bhimayya was\tto be  in possession  of the
\nlands for  twenty years\t and surrender possession thereof to
\nthe
\n699<\/span>
\nOwner after  the expiry of the period. Subsequently, Nagappa
\nand his wife as well as Nagappa’s brother Thimmaiah came and
\nsettled down  at Raichur.  Bhimakka alias Bhisamma, the wife
\nof Nagappa,  died in  or about\t1953 and Nagappa died two or
\nthree years  later.  Nagappa’s\tbrother\t also  died  leaving
\nbehind him  his son Narsappa as the only heir in the family.
\nMeanwhile Kurbar  Bhimayya,  the  mortgagee  and  father  of
\nHemareddy  alias   Vemareddy  (A-1)  died.  Hemareddy  alias
\nVemareddy continued  in possession  of the  lands. Narsappa,
\nson of Nagappa’s brother Thimmaiah executed a will in favour
\nof  the\t  complainant  Narsappa\t  Eliger,  bequeathing\t the
\naforesaid lands to him.\n<\/p>\n
     Narsappa  Eliger,\t the  legatee\tunder  the  will  of
\nThimmaiah’s  son   Narsappa,  approached   Hemareddy   alias
\nVemareddy, the son of the mortgagee Kurbar Bhimayya, who was
\nin possession  of the  lands and  requested him to surrender
\npossession of  the lands  on the  ground that  the period of
\ntwenty years  had expired.  Then Hemareddy  alias  Vemareddy
\ninformed the  complainant  Narsappa  Eliger  that  he  would
\nconsider his  request a\t few days later as it was harvesting
\ntime. Finding  that there  was no  response  from  Hemareddy
\nalias Vemareddy,  Narsappa Eliger wrote a letter, for which,
\naccording to the prosecution, Hemareddy alias Vemareddy sent
\nthe reply,  Ex. P-3  Subsequently, Narsappa  Eliger filed  a
\nsuit for  redemption of\t the  mortgage.\t Subsequent  to\t the
\ninstitution of\tthe suit,  Narsappa Eliger came to know from
\nShivareddy (P.W.  12) that  Hemareddy  alias  Vemareddy\t has
\npurchased the  lands in\t question from Pyatal Bhimakka (A-2)
\nand another  and that  A-2 had\timpersonated the  real owner
\nBhimakka, wife\tof Nagappa, who, as stated earlier, had died
\nin or  about 1953. Thereupon, Narsappa Eliger made inquiries
\nin the\tOffice of  the concerned  Sub-Registrar and  learned
\nthat the  sale deed had been registered on 10-11-1970. After
\nobtaining a  registration copy\tof the\tsale deed  and after
\nmaking inquiries at Alkur Narsappa Eliger learnt that Pyatal
\nBhimakka (A-2) had no properties of her own. Narsappa Eliger
\nthereafter filed  a criminal  complaint in  the Court, which
\nwas referred  to the  Police. After  investigation, the Sub-
\nInspector of  Police, P.W.  21 filed  a charge-sheet against
\nboth the  accused and  two others  alleging  that  they\t had
\nconspired to cheat Narsappa Eliger and to deprive him of the
\nlands and  that in  pursuance of  that conspiracy  they\t put
\nforward Pyatal\tBhimakka as  Nagappa’s wife Bhimakka and got
\nthe sale  deed executed\t by her\t and they  thereby committed
\noffences under\tss. 120B,  193, 465,  467, 468\tand 420 read
\nwith s.\t 114 of\t the Indian Penal Code. Only Hemareddy alias
\nVemareddy and Pyatal Bhimakka, A-1 and A-2 were committed to
\nthe Court of Sessions at Raichur, and they were found guilty
\nand convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     We were  taken through  the  judgment  of\tthe  learned
\nJudges of  the High Court. We are satisfied that the learned
\nJudges were justified
\n700<\/span>
\nin coming  to the  conclusion on the evidence that Hemareddy
\nalias Vemareddy\t is guilty  under s  467 read  with  s.\t 144
\nI.P.C. and  that Pyatal\t Bhimakka is  guilty  under  s.\t 467
\nI.P.C. Since  we agree\twith the  learned Judges of the High
\nCourt on the question of fact in so far as it relates to A-2
\nin full\t and as\t regards Hemareddy  alias Vemareddy (A-2) in
\nrespect of  his conviction under s. 467 read with s. 114, it
\nis unnecessary\tfor us\tto refer to the evidence relied upon
\nby the\tlearned Judges\tfor coming  to the  conclusion\tthat
\nHemareddy alias\t Vemareddy is  guilty under s. 467 read with
\ns.114 I.P.C. and that Pyatal Bhimakka is guilty under s. 467
\nI.P.C. This  Court has\tobserved in  Girija Nandini  Devi v.
\nBigendra Nandini  Choudry that\tit is  not the\tduty of\t the
\nappellate court\t when it  agrees with  the view of the trial
\ncourt on  the  evidence\t to  repeat  the  narration  of\t the
\nevidence or  to reiterate  the reasons\tgiven by  the  trial
\ncourt expression  of general agreement with reasons given by
\nthe court  the decision\t of  which  is\tunder  appeal,\twill
\nordinarily suffice.  We shall  deal with  the  case  of\t the
\nprosecution. against  Hemareddy alias Vemareddy under s. 193
\nI.P.C. separately.  We, therefore, confirm the conviction of
\nHemareddy alias\t Vemareddy under.  s. 467  read with  s. 114
\nI.P.C. all and of Pyatal Bhimakka under s. 467 I.P.C. We are
\nof the opinion that no interference with the judgment of the
\nlearned Judges\tof the\tHigh Court in regard to the sentence
\nawarded to  Pyatal Bhimakka  is called\tfor having regard to
\nthe fact  that the  learned  Judges  have  given  sufficient
\nreasons for  taking a lenient view in regard to that accused
\non the\tquestion of  sentence. We,  therefore,\tdismiss\t the
\nCriminal Appeal\t in so\tfar as it relates to the question of
\nsentence awarded to Pyatal Bhimakka.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  seen from  the judgment  under appeal  that\t the
\nlearned Public\tProsecutor of Karnataka had contended before
\nthe learned  Judges of\tthe High Court that the case against
\nHemareddy alias Vemareddy for fabricating false evidence may
\nnot  be\t maintainable  in  view\t of  the  provisions  of  s.
\n195(1)(b) of  the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he may be
\nprosecuted for\tabetting the offence of forgery and that the
\nconviction of  that accused  under s.  467 read\t with s. 114
\nI.P.C. is  justified on\t the facts of this case for while s.
\n193 I.P.C.  is one of the sections mentioned in s. 195(1)(b)
\nof the\tCode of\t Criminal Procedure,   s.  467 I.P.C. is not
\nmentioned in  that sub-clause  of  s.  195(1).\tThe  learned
\nJudges\trejected   that\t submission,   relying\tupon   three
\ndecisions of  the Madras High Court in Perianna Muthirian v.
\nVengu Ayyar,  Ravanaoppa Reddy\tv. Emperor and in re. V.V.l.
\nNarasimurthy. In  the first of those cases   the complainant
\nstated
\n701<\/span>
\nthat certain  persons conspired\t with others  and  forged  a
\ndocument with  the object of using it in evidence in certain
\nproceedings pending  in a  court and other proceedings which
\nmight  follow.\tThat  document\twas  actually  used  in\t the
\nproceedings pending  before a  court, and  it has  been held
\nthat the  offence complained  of fell under s. 195(1) (b) of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the complaint
\ncannot be  taken cognizance  of unless it was in writing and
\nby the\tcourt in  which the offence was alleged to have been
\ncommitted. It  has been\t observed in  that decision  that to
\nhold in\t such a\t case that  although a\tprivate\t person\t was
\nbarred from  prosecuting the  accused for  fabricating false
\nevidence, he  would still be at liberty to prosecute him for
\nfraud would result in the provisions of s. 195(1) (b) of the
\nCode of\t Criminal Procedure  being evaded and that it is not
\nopen to\t the court to try the accused either for fabricating
\nevidence or  for  fraud\t because  the  specific\t offence  of
\nfabricating false  evidence should  be given preference over
\nthe more  general offence of forgery. In the second case the
\ncomplaint was  filed by\t a private  person alleging that the
\naccused had fabricated a promissory note and induced a third
\nparty to file a suit against the complainant so as to obtain
\na  fraudulent\tdecree,\t and  it  has  been  held  that\t the
\nallegation made in the complaint attracted the provisions of
\ns. 195(1)  (b) of  the Code  of Criminal  Procedure and\t the
\nCourt must  refuse to  take cognizance.\t In the\t third case,
\nSomasundaram, J. has observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tmain  point  on\t which\tMr.  Jayarama  Aiyar
\n     appearing\tfor  the  petitioner  seeks  to\t quash\tthis
\n     committal is  that on the facts an offence under s. 193
\n     I.P.C. is\tdisclosed for  which the  court cannot\ttake
\n     cognizance without a complaint by the court as provided
\n     under s.  195(1)(b) Criminal  P.C. The  first  question
\n     which arises  for consideration is whether on the facts
\n     mentioned in  the complaint,  an offence  under s.\t 193
\n     I.P.C. is revealed. Section 193 reads as follows :
\n\t  “Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any
\n     stage of  a judicial  proceeding, or  fabricates  false
\n     evidence for  the purpose of being used in any stage of
\n     a\tjudicial   proceeding,\tshall\tbe   punished\twith
\n     imprisonment of either description for a term which may
\n     extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
\n\t  “Fabrication of  false evidence”  is defined in s.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     192. The relevant part of it is :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “Whoever  causes   any   circumstance\t  to   exist
\n     intending that such circumstance may appear in evidence
\n     in a judicial proceeding and that such circumstance may
\n     cause any\tperson who  in such proceeding is to form an
\n     opinion upon the
\n702<\/span>
\n     evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any
\n     point material to the result of such proceeding is said
\n     “to fabricate false evidence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The effect  of the  allegations in  the  complaint
\n     preferred by the complainant is that the petitioner has
\n     caused this  will to come into existence intending that
\n     such will\tmay cause  the Judge before whom the suit is
\n     filed to form an opinion that the will is a genuine one
\n     and, therefore,  his minor\t daughter is entitled to the
\n     property. The  allegation, therefore,  in the complaint
\n     will undoubtedly  fall under  s. 192,  I.P.C. It  will,
\n     therefore, amount\tto an  offence under s. 193, I.P.C.,
\n     i.e. fabricating  false evidence  for  the\t purpose  of
\n     being used\t in the\t judicial proceeding.  There  is  no
\n     doubt that\t the facts  disclosed will also amount to an
\n     offence under  ss. 467  and 471  I.P.C. For prosecuting
\n     this petitioner for an offence under ss. 467 and 471, a
\n     complaint by the court may not be necessary as under s.
\n     195(1)(c), Criminal  P.C. a  complaint may be made only
\n     when it  is committed  by a  party to any proceeding in
\n     any court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Mr. Jayarama Aiyar does not give up his contention
\n     that the  petitioner, though he appears only a guardian
\n     of the  minor girl, is still a party to the proceeding.
\n     But it  is unnecessary  to go  into the question at the
\n     present moment and I reserve my opinion on the question
\n     whether the  guardian can be a party to a proceeding or
\n     not, as  this case\t can be\t disposed of  on  the  other
\n     point, viz.,  that when  the allegations  amount to  an
\n     offence under  s. 193,  I.P.C., a complaint of court is
\n     necessary under  s. 195(1)(b),  Criminal P.C.  and this
\n     cannot be\tevaded by  prosecuting the  accused  for  an
\n     offence  for   which  a   complaint  of  court  is\t not
\n     necessary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We agree  with the\t view expressed by the learned Judge
\nand hold  that in  cases where\tin the\tcourse of  the\tsame
\ntransaction an\toffence for which no complaint by a court is
\nnecessary  under  s.  195(1)(b)\t of  the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure and an offence for which a complaint of a court is
\nnecessary under\t that sub-section,  are committed, it is not
\npossible to  split up  and hold\t that the prosecution of the
\naccused for  the offences  not mentioned  in s. 195(1)(b) of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
     However, it  is not  possible to agree with the learned
\nJudges of  the High  Court that\t the complaint\tin this case
\ngiven by  the private  individual Narsappa  Eliger,  P.W.  3
\nagainst Hemareddy  alias Vemareddy  for the offence under s.
\n467 read with s. 114 I.P.C. is not cognizable and
\n703<\/span>
\nthat  s.   195(1)(b)  of  the  Criminal\t Procedure  Code  is
\nattracted so  far as Hemareddy alias Vemareddy is concerned.
\nThe document  forged by\t Pyatal Bhimakka, A-2 is a sale deed
\ndated 10-11-70.\t The suit for redemption of the mortgage was
\nfiled by  the complainant  Narsappa Eliger, P.W. 3 on 17-11-\n<\/p>\n
70. He filed the complaint before the Police on 24-11-70 and
\nbefore\tthe  court  subsequently  on  15-12-70.\t It  is\t not
\ndisputed that  the forged  sale deed  dated 10-11-70 was not
\nproduced in the suit filed by the complainant for redemption
\nof the mortgage. Mr. P. Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing
\nfor A-1,  who assisted the court as Amicus Curiae for Pyatal
\nBhimakka, A-2,\tinvited our attention to the decision in re.
\nVasudeo Ramchandra  Joshi and  submitted that  the complaint
\nshould have  been filed\t by the\t court in which the suit for
\nredemption of  the mortgage  was filed\tby  the\t complainant
\nNarsappa Eliger in view of the provisions of s. 195(1)(b) of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure and that as the complaint was
\nfiled directly by the private individual, the prosecution of
\nHemareddy alias\t Vemareddy for\toffences under\ts. 467\tread
\nwith s.\t 114 I.P.C.  and s.  193  I.P.C.  is  bad.  In\tthat
\ndecision reference  has been  made to  the decisions  of the
\nBombay High  Court in  (1912) 14 Bombay Law Reporter 362 and\n<\/p>\n
715.  In  that\tcase  there  was  a  proceeding\t before\t the
\nMagistrate at Bhusaval against one Vana Khusal in respect of
\nthe charge  under s.  401 I.P.C. An application was made for
\nbail on\t behalf of that person by Vasudeo Ramachandra Joshi,
\nthe petitioner\tbefore the  High Court, but that application
\nwas refused  on April  1,  1922.  The  statements  of  three
\nwitnesses were\trecorded under\ts. 164,\t Criminal  Procedure
\nCode on\t April 18, 1922 from which it appeared that on April
\n10, 1922  those three  witnesses had  an interview  with the
\nPleader Vasudeo Ramachandra Joshi and he had instigated them
\nto give\t false evidence.  On April  15,\t 1922  another\tcase
\nagainst Vasudeo\t Ramachandra Joshi  in respect\tof a dacoity
\nwas sent  up to\t the Magistrate. The case of the prosecution
\nwas that in connection with that case of dacoity the alleged
\ninstigation by\tthe Pleader to give false evidence was made.
\nThose witnesses\t were examined before the Magistrate on June
\n2, 1922 in the dacoity case, and on June 7, 1922 a complaint
\nwas filed  by the  Police against Vasudeo Ramachandra Joshi,
\ncharging  him  with  having  abetted  the  giving  of  false
\nevidence. The  learned Judges  of the  Bombay High Court who
\nheard the Civil Revision Case have observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “On behalf  of the  Crown  it\t is  urged  that  no
\n     sanction is  necessary because  at the  date of alleged
\n     abetment no proceeding in relation to which the offence
\n     is said  to have  been committed,\twas pending.  It  is
\n     contended that the offence
\n704<\/span>
\n     had no  relation to the proceedings pending on April 10
\n     and that the proceedings to which it related, were sent
\n     up to  the Magistrate  on April 19 and were not pending
\n     at the time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  It is\t quite clear,  however, from the very nature
\n     of the  offence alleged  against the present petitioner
\n     that if  the offence was committed, it was committed in
\n     relation to the proceeding in which those three persons
\n     were to  be examined  as witnesses, and it is difficult
\n     to understand  how it  could be  said that\t the present
\n     proceedings against  the petitioner could go on without
\n     the  sanction   of\t the   Court  before   which   these
\n     proceedings are  pending at present, and in relation to
\n     which the\toffence is  said to  have been\tcommitted. I
\n     assume,  without  deciding\t that  the  offence  alleged
\n     against the  petitioner related to the Budhgaon dacoity
\n     case and  not to  the case\t under s.  401, Indian Penal
\n     Code, then\t actually  pending  even  then\tthe  offence
\n     related  to   proceedings\twhich\twere  clearly  under
\n     contemplation then\t and  which  were  sent\t up  to\t the
\n     Magistrate on  April 15.  The  expression\tused  in  s.
\n     195(1) (b)\t is wide  enough to  cover such a proceeding
\n     and the  decisions of this Court in re Khanderao (1912)
\n     14 Bombay\tL.R. 362 and in re Mahadev Yadneshwar (1912)
\n     14 Bombay\tL.W. 715,  support  that  conclusion.  I  am
\n     unable to\tfollow the  reasoning adopted by the learned
\n     Magistrate in  holding that  no sanction  is necessary.
\n     We, therefore,  quash the\tpresent proceedings, without
\n     prejudice to  any proceeding  that may  be taken  after
\n     obtaining the necessary sanction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  I may\t also point  out that  the prosecution\tof a
\n     pleader  defending\t  an  accused\tperson\twhile\tthat
\n     proceeding is  pending, and  before the evidence of the
\n     witnesses who  are said to have been instigated to give
\n     false evidence  has been  appreciated by  the Court, is
\n     inadvisable. If  such a prosecution is to be started it
\n     ought to  be started after the principal proceeding, in
\n     relation to  which the  offence is\t said to  have\tbeen
\n     committed, has terminated.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We are  of the opinion that it is not possible to agree
\nwith the  view of  the learned Judges expressed in that case
\nthat even  when the  offence of instigating the witnesses to
\ngive  false   evidence\twas   committed\t in  relation  to  a
\nproceeding which  was not  actually pending in the court but
\nwas only under contemplation the provisions of s. 195(1) (b)
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted.\n<\/p>\n
705<\/span><\/p>\n
     The decisions  in 1912  (14) Bombay  Law Report 362 and
\n715 would  not apply  to the  facts of\tthe present case for
\nwhereas in  those cases the false evidence had been actually
\nput in\tevidence in the present case, as already stated, the
\nforged sale  deed dated\t 10-11-70 was not at all tendered by
\nHemareddy alias\t Vemareddy in  the redemption  suit filed by
\nthe complainant\t Narsappa Eliger on 17-11-70 at any stage of
\nthe proceedings\t in that  suit. In  the first  of these\t two
\ndecisions-re. Khanderao\t Yeshwant the  petitioner before the
\nBombay High  Court, a  Policeman, was  present in  a village
\nDhanchi on 20-2-1911 in relation to work about census and on
\nthat day  a panchnama was filed in that village in regard to
\nan offence  alleged to\thave been  committed  by  a  certain
\nTalukdar under\tthe Arms  Act. The  investigation  into\t the
\nalleged offence\t was  not  made\t by  the  petitioner  Police
\nconstable but  by the village constable Shamserkhan who sent
\nup the\tcase to\t the Sub-Inspector  by whom  in turn  it was
\ncommitted to  a Magistrate.  In the  course  of\t trying\t the
\nalleged offence\t the Magistrate\t found that certain recitals
\nin the\tpanchnama were false. The Talukdar was discharged as
\nthe Magistrate\tcame  to  the  conclusion  that\t the  charge
\nimputed to him was false. In that view he issued a notice to
\nthe village  constable Shamserkhan  as to  why sanction\t for
\nprosecution should  not be  granted under  s. 195  Crl. P.C.
\nAfter  hearing\tShamserkhan  the  Magistrate  issued  notice
\nagainst the  Police Constable  and on  8-9-1911 directed the
\nprosecution of the Police Constable under s. 211 I.P.C. Thus
\nit is  seen that  the panchnama\t containing  false  recitals
\nprepared by  the Police\t Constable was\tactually used  in  a
\ncriminal  proceeding  against  the  Talukdar  who  had\tbeen
\nimplicated as a culprit in the panchnama. In the second case
\nre Mahadev  Yadneshwar Joshi,  Mahadev and  five others were
\nbeing prosecuted  for offences under s. 193 read with s. 109
\nI.P.C.-in that\tthey were alleged to have abetted the making
\nof a  false statement  during the  police investigation in a
\ntheft case.  The theft\tcase was  subsequently\ttried  by  a
\nMagistrate who\tconvicted  the\taccused.  The  appeal  filed
\nagainst the  conviction by  the Magistrate was unsuccessful.
\nDuring the trial the accused raised an objection that before
\nthey could  be prosecuted,  sanction of\t the competent Court
\nshould have  been obtained.  The Magistrate  over-ruled\t the
\nobjection. The\tlearned Judges of the Bombay High Court held
\nthat sanction  was necessary and that the offences cannot be
\ntried in  the absence of a complaint by a court before which
\nthe evidence,  which is\t now  said  to\tbe  fabricated,\t was
\nadduced. In  that case also the fabricated evidence had been
\nactually used in a criminal proceeding and s. 195 (1) (b) of
\nthe Code  of Criminal Procedure was therefore attracted. But
\nin the\tpresent case, as stated earlier, the fabricated sale
\ndeed dated 10-11-70 had not
\n706<\/span>
\nbeen put in evidence at any stage of the suit for redemption
\nfiled by  the complainant Narsappa Eliger in the Civil Court
\non 17-11-1970.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. N.  Nettar, appearing\tfor the\t State, invited\t our
\nattention to  the decision  of this Court in Patel Laljibhai
\nSomabhai v. The State of Gujarat. In<\/a> that case the appellant
\nbefore this Court had filed a suit for recovery of a certain
\namount on  the basis of a forged cheque. A private complaint
\nwas filed  in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate against the
\nappellant and  another person  under ss.  467 and 471 I.P.C.
\nThe Magistrate\tprima facie  found on  the evidence that the
\nappellant had  fraudulently used in the Civil Court a forged
\ndocument and  he committed  the appellant  to  Sessions\t for
\ntrial. The  appellant raised  an objection that under s. 195
\n(1) (c)\t of the\t Code of Criminal Procedure no cognizance of
\nthe offence  could be taken on a private complaint. The High
\nCourt upheld the committal order. But this Court held on the
\nscope and  effect of  s. 195 (1)(c) and its applicability to
\ncases where  a forged document had been produced as evidence
\nin a  judicial\tproceedings  by\t a  party  thereto  and\t the
\nprosecution of\tthat party sought for offences under ss. 467
\nand 471\t I.P.C. that  the words “to have been committed by a
\nparty to  any proceeding  in any  court” according to s. 195
\n(1) (c) mean that the offence should be alleged to have been
\ncommitted by the party to the proceeding in his character as
\nsuch party,  that is,  after having  become a  party to\t the
\nproceeding. This Court has observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We are directly concerned only with cl. (c) of s.
\n     195(1). What  is  particularly  worth  noting  in\tthis
\n     clause is\t(i)  the  allegation  of  commission  of  an
\n     offence in\t respect of  a document produced or given in
\n     evidence in  a proceeding\tin a  court;  and  (ii)\t the
\n     commission\t of   such  offence   by  a  party  to\tsuch
\n     proceeding. The use of the words “in respect of” in the
\n     first ingredient  would seem  to some extent to enlarge
\n     the scope\tof this\t clause. Judicial  opinion, however,
\n     differs on the effect and meaning of the words “to have
\n     been committed  by a  party to  any proceeding  in\t any
\n     court”. As\t cl. (b)  of s.\t 195(1) does  not  speak  of
\n     offence, committed\t by a party to the proceeding, while
\n     considering decisions  on that  clause this distinction
\n     deserves to  be borne  in mind.  Broadly  speaking\t two
\n     divergent views have been expressed in decided cases in
\n     this connection.  According to one view, to attract the
\n     prohibition contained  in cl. (c) the offence should be
\n     alleged to\t have been  committed by  the party  to\t the
\n     proceeding in  his character as such party, which means
\n     after having
\n707<\/span>
\n     become a  party to the proceeding, whereas according to
\n     the other\tview  the  alleged  offence  may  have\tbeen
\n     committed by  the accused\teven prior to his becoming a
\n     party to  the proceeding  provided that the document in
\n     question is  produced or  given  in  evidence  in\tsuch
\n     proceeding. The language used seems to us to be capable
\n     of\t either\t  meaning  without  straining  it.  We\thave
\n     therefore,\t to   see  which   of  the  two\t alternative
\n     constructions is  to be  preferred\t as  being  more  in
\n     accord with the legislative intent, keeping in view the
\n     statutory scheme and the purpose and object of enacting
\n     the prohibition contained in s. 195(1)(c).
\n     …………………………………….
\n     …………………………………….
\n\t  The underlying  purpose of  enacting s. 195(1) (b)
\n     and  (c)  and  s.\t476  seems  to\tbe  to\tcontrol\t the
\n     temptation\t on   the  part\t  of  the   private  parties
\n     considering  themselves   aggrieved  by   the  offences
\n     mentioned\tin   those  sections   to   start   criminal
\n     prosecutions on  frivolous, vexatious  or\tinsufficient
\n     grounds inspired  by a  revengeful desire\tto harass or
\n     spite  their   opponents.\tThese\toffences  have\tbeen
\n     selected for  the\tcourt’s\t control  because  of  their
\n     direct impact  on\tthe  judicial  process.\t It  is\t the
\n     judicial process,\tin other words the administration of
\n     public justice,  which  is\t the  direct  and  immediate
\n     object or\tvictim of  these offences  and it is only by
\n     misleading the  courts and\t thereby preventing  the due
\n     course of\tlaw and\t justice that the ultimate object of
\n     harming the  private party\t is designed to be realised.
\n     As the  purity of\tthe  proceedings  of  the  court  is
\n     directly sullied  by the  crime the Court is considered
\n     to\t be   the  only\t  party\t entitled  to  consider\t the
\n     desirability of  complaining against  the guilty party.
\n     The private  party designed  ultimately to\t be  injured
\n     through  the  offence  against  the  administration  of
\n     public justice  is undoubtedly  entitled  to  move\t the
\n     court for persuading it to file the complaint. But such
\n     party is deprived of the general right recognized by s.
\n     190  Cr.\tP.C.  of   the\taggrieved  parties  directly
\n     initiating the criminal proceedings. The offences about
\n     which  the\t  court\t alone,\t to  the  exclusion  of\t the
\n     aggrieved private parties, is clothed with the right to
\n     complain may, therefore, be appropriately considered to
\n     be only  those offences  committed\t by  a\tparty  to  a
\n     proceeding in that court, the commission of which has a
\n     reasonably close  nexus with  the proceedings  in\tthat
\n     court so that it can, without embark-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
708<\/span><\/p>\n
     ing upon  a completely  independent and  fresh inquiry,
\n     satisfactorily consider by reference principally to its
\n     records the  expediency of\t prosecuting the  delinquent
\n     party.  It,   therefore,  appears\tto  us\tto  be\tmore
\n     appropriate  to   adopt  the   strict  construction  of
\n     confining the  prohibition contained  in s. 195 (1) (c)
\n     only to  those cases  in which  the offences  specified
\n     therein were  committed by a party to the proceeding in
\n     the character  as such  party. It\tmay be recalled that
\n     the superior  court is  equally competent under s. 476A
\n     Cr. P.C.  to consider  the question  of  expediency  of
\n     prosecution and  to complain  and there is also a right
\n     of appeal\tconferred by  s. 476B  on a  person on whose
\n     application the  Court has\t refused to make a complaint
\n     under s.  476  or\ts.  476A  or  against  whom  such  a
\n     complaint\thas   been  made.  The\tappellate  court  is
\n     empowered after  hearing  the  parties  to\t direct\t the
\n     withdrawal of  the complaint  or as  the case  may\t be,
\n     itself to\tmake the  complaint. All these sections read
\n     together indicate\tthat the  legislature could not have
\n     intended to  extend the  prohibition  contained  in  s.
\n     195(1)(c) Crl.  P.C. to  the offences mentioned therein
\n     when committed by a party to a proceeding in that court
\n     prior to  his becoming  such party. It is no doubt true
\n     that quite often-if not almost invariably-the documents
\n     are forged\t for being  used or  produced in evidence in
\n     court before  the proceedings  are started. But that in
\n     our opinion  cannot be  the controlling factor, because
\n     to\t adopt\tthat  construction,  documents\tforged\tlong
\n     before the\t commencement of  a proceeding in which they
\n     may happen to be actually used or produced in evidence,
\n     years later  by some  other party would also be subject
\n     to ss.  195 and 476 Crl. P.C. This in our opinion would
\n     unreasonably restrict  the right  possessed by a person
\n     and recognized by s. 190 Cr. P.C. without promoting the
\n     real purpose  and object underlying these two sections.
\n     The Court\tin such\t a case\t may not be in a position to
\n     satisfactorily determine  the question of expediency or
\n     making a complaint.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We are  bound by  the view\t expressed in  this decision
\nthat the  Legislature could  not have intended to extend the
\nprohibition contained  in s.  195(1) (c)  Cr.  P.C.  to\t the
\noffences mentioned  therein when  committed by\ta party to a
\nproceeding in  that court  prior to his becoming such party.
\nIn the decision in Raghunath and Others v. State of U.P. and
\nOthers<\/a> it is observed :\n<\/p>\n
709<\/span><\/p>\n
     “In this  Court the main contention raised on behalf of
\n     the appellants  by their  learned counsel was that even
\n     prosecution for  an offence  under Section\t 465  I.P.C.
\n     requires complaint\t by the\t revenue court\tconcerned as
\n     such  an  offence\tis  covered  by\t Section  195(1)(c),
\n     Cr.P.C. This  contention is  difficult to\taccept. This
\n     Court has\trecently in  Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The
\n     State of Gujarat<\/a> [1971] 2 SCC 376 after considering the
\n     conflict of  judicial opinion  on this  point, approved
\n     the view  taken  in  Kushal  Pal  Singh  case  (supra).
\n     According to  that decision  the words  “to  have\tbeen
\n     committed by a party to any proceeding in any court” in
\n     Section 195(1)(c)\tmean  that  the\t offence  should  be
\n     alleged to\t have been  committed by  the party  to\t the
\n     proceeding in  his character  as such  party, that\t is,
\n     after having  become a  party to  the  proceeding.\t The
\n     appellants’ learned  counsel tried\t to distinguish\t the
\n     decision of  the Allahabad\t High Court  in\t Kushal\t Pal
\n     Singh case\t (supra) by  pointing out  that in that case
\n     the  offence  of  forgery\twas  alleged  to  have\tbeen
\n     committed in  1898, more  than 25\tyears before  it was
\n     produced or  given in  evidence in court and it was for
\n     this reason that Section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. was held to
\n     be inapplicable.  In our  view, the  duration  of\ttime
\n     between the  date of  forgery  and\t the  production  or
\n     giving in\tevidence of  the forged document in court is
\n     not a  governing factor.  The principle  laid  down  in
\n     Sombabhai’s case  (supra) was  not founded\t on any such
\n     consideration. Reference to such delay was made in that
\n     decision in another context. After taking notice of the
\n     fact  that\t Section  195(1)(c),  Cr.  P.C.\t deprives  a
\n     private aggrieved party of the general right recognized
\n     by Section\t 190 Cr.P.C. of directly initiating criminal
\n     proceedings this Court observed in the case:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       “The offences about which the Court alone, to
\n\t  the exclusion of the aggrieved private parties, is
\n\t  clothed with the right to complain may, therefore,
\n\t  be  appropriately  considered\t to  be\t only  those
\n\t  offences committed  by a  party to a proceeding in
\n\t  that\tcourt,\t the  commission   of  which  has  a
\n\t  reasonably close  nexus with\tthe  proceedings  in
\n\t  that court  so that it can, without embarking upon
\n\t  a  completely\t  independent  and   fresh  inquiry,
\n\t  satisfactorily consider  by reference\t principally
\n\t  to its  records the  expediency of prosecuting the
\n\t  delinquent party.  It, therefore,  appears  to  be
\n\t  more appropriate  to adopt  in strict construction
\n\t  of confining\tthe prohibition contained in Section
\n\t  195(1)(c) only to those cases in which the
\n710<\/span>
\n\t  offences specified  therein were  committed  by  a
\n     party to  the  proceeding\tin  the\t character  as\tsuch
\n     party”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the present case, the offence of abetment of forgery
\nwas complete  when the\tforged sale  deed dated 10-11-70 was
\nfabricated and\tregistered. But\t no  offence  under  s.\t 193
\nI.P.C. falling\twithin the  scope of s. 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
\ncould be  stated to  have been\tcommitted by Hemareddy alias
\nVemareddy as  the forged  sale deed  was not  at all  put in
\nevidence at  any stage\tin the\tredemption suit filed by the
\ncomplainant on\t17-11-70. Section  195(1)(b) of\t the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(195) (1) No Court shall take cognizance,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)…………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) (i)  of any  offence punishable  under any  of\t the
\n     following sections\t of the\t Indian Penal  Code, namely,
\n     sections 193  to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to
\n     211 (both\tinclusive) and\t228, when  such\t offence  is
\n     alleged to\t have been  committed in, or in relation to,
\n     any proceeding in any Court, or
\n     ……………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     …………………………………………..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It could  be seen\tthat the  section requires  that the
\noffence under  s. 193  I.P.C. should be alleged to have been
\ncommitted in or in relation to, any proceeding in any court.
\nSince the  forged sale\tdeed was not produced in evidence in
\nany stage  of the redemption suit, s. 195(1) (b) of the Code
\nof Criminal  Procedure\tis  not\t attracted.  Therefore,\t the
\nMagistrate who\tcommitted the accused to the Sessions, could
\nnot have taken cognizance of any offence under s. 193 I.P.C.
\nso far\tas Hemareddy alias Vemareddy (A-1) is concerned. The
\ncomplaint could\t have been taken on file only for an offence
\npunishable under  s. 467  read with  s. 114 I.P.C. so far as
\nthat accused is concerned. It would follow that no complaint
\nby the\tcourt for  prosecuting Hemareddy alias Vemareddy for
\nthe offence  under  s.\t467  read  with\t s.  114  I.P.C.  is
\nrequired, and he could be validly convicted for that offence
\non the\tcomplaint given\t by the\t private individual. We are,
\ntherefore, of  the opinion  that learned  Judges of the High
\nCourt were not right in law in holding that the complaint in
\nthis case  was totally\tnot maintainable  against  Hemareddy
\nalias Vemareddy\t in view  of the provisions of s. 195(1) (b)
\nof  the\t  Code\tof  Criminal  Procedure,  and  in  not\tonly
\nacquitting Hemareddy alias Vemareddy of the offence under s.
\n467 read  with s. 114 I.P.C. but also in finding that he has
\ncommitted an  offence punishable  under\t s.  193  I.P.C.  We
\naccordingly confirm the judgment of the
\n711<\/span>
\nHigh Court  as regards\tmodification of the sentence awarded
\nto Pyatal  Bhimakka (A-2)  and the  acquittal  of  Hemareddy
\nalias Vemareddy\t under s.  193 I.P.C. and dismiss the appeal
\nto that\t extent but  allow the\tappeal in  part\t so  far  as
\nHemareddy alias\t Vemareddy is  concerned and find him guilty
\nunder s.  467 read  with s.  114 I.P.C.\t and convict him and
\nsentence him  to undergo  R.I. for  one year  and also pay a
\nfine of\t Rs. 500\/-  and in default to undergo R.I. for three
\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n712<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1417, 1981 SCR (2) 695 Author: A Varadarajan Bench: Varadarajan, A. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RESPONDENT: HEMAREDDY ALIAS VEMAREDDY AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1981 BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1981-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-10T05:52:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T05:52:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2\"},\"wordCount\":6174,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T05:52:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-10T05:52:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981","datePublished":"1981-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T05:52:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2"},"wordCount":6174,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T05:52:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-hemareddy-alias-vemareddy-and-anr-on-27-january-1981-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100083","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}