LexBABU LAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l 4 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 957 to a party seeking to serve a notice upon the Government or a public servant. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent has not appeared before this Court and hence there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed BABU LAL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRACADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. W ANCHOO, J. C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898(Act 5 of 1898), ss. 476, 479A-Using forged document-Whether offence contemplated by s. 479A(l)-Interpretation of s. 479A. In a civil suit the appellant was examined as a witness and he tendered in evidence an agreen1ent, which in the Munsiff's opinion was forged. The Munsiff, however, in his judgment did not record the opinion required for ordering the prosecution of the appellant under s. 479A of the Code of Crin1inal Procedure. Respondents 2 to 5, who were the plaintiffs in the suit, had applied, before the suit \vas disposed of, that action be taken against the appellant un- der s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In disposing of the suit the Munsiff did not record the opinion which he was re- quired to record if he desired that action should be taken against the appellant under s. 479A. But on the application of the Res- pondents, the Munsiff directed that complaint be made against the appellant in exercise of the powers vested under s. 476 Code of Crin1inal Procedure for the offence of fraudulently or dis- honestly using as genuine a docurnent which the appellant knew or had reason to believe to be forged. This order of the Munsiff was confinned in appeal by the District Judge, and the revision to the High Court, too, was dismissed. In appeal by special leave,- HELD : (i) Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure excludes the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed under s. 476 to 479, only in respect of offences under s. !95(b) & (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure where a person appearing before the Court or a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated falS(: evidence for the purpose of being used in any ·stage of the judicial pro- ceeding. 1963 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gundugol~ Ven- kata Suryanara- yana Garu Shah, /. 1963 Sept., 18 1963 Babu/al v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others. Shah, /. 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] (ii) The offence punishable under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code does not fall within the category contemplated by s. 479A Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, the authority of the Court to act under s. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not impaired. Raghubar Prasad Dudhwalla v. Chamanlal Mehra, [1964] 3 S. C. R. 980 and Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra, [1963] Supp. 1 S. C. R. 501, referred to. C1vrL APPELLATE JuR1sn1cTION : Civil Appeal No. 708 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 31, 1962, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 60 of 1960. C. B. Agarwala, K. P. Gupta for K. R. Krishnaswamy for the appellant. C. P. Lal, for respondent no. 1. S. P. Sinha and M. I. Khowaja, for respondents nos. 2 to 5. September 18, 1963. The judgment of the Court was ddivered by SHAH, J.-Jairam · and three otherY.-hereafter collec- tively called "the plaintiffs" -sued Babu Lal-appellant in this appeal-in the Court of the Munsiff, Koil, District Aligarh, f0r a decree for possession of a strip of land, for removal of a wall and a slab of stone and for an injunc- tion restraining the making of certain constructions in the northern wall of the plaintiffs' house. The plaintiffs claimed that Mohini wife of J airam the first plaintiff had purchased the house occupied by them by sale deed dated August 1, 1932 from the vendor who was also named Mohini, who in her turn had purchased the house by sale deed dated July 25, 1917 from the original owner Kishan Lal. Babu Lal who is the son of Kishan Lal pleaded that the vendor Mohini had acquired only a life interest in the house by the deed under which the property was conveyed to her by Kishan Lal and the plaintiffs' predecessor-in- interest had acquired no title under the sale deed dated August l, 1932. In support of this plea Babu Lal gave evidence at the trial of the suit and tendered in evidence an agreement dated July 25, 1917 purported to be execut- ed by Mohini to whom Kishan Lal had
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.