BHIMA RAZU PRASAD versus STATE, REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACU-II

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1020 · Decided: 12-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1020
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
BHIMA RAZU PRASAD
v.
STATE, REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CBI/SPE/ACU-II
(Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2021)
MARCH 12, 2021
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b) – Penal
Code, 1860 – ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 – Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 – s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) – A case was registered against
the appellant/accused no.1 u/ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and
s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) of the PC Act – Thereafter, the respondent-
investigative agency conducted search at the appellant’s residence
and found an amount of Rs.79,65,900/-, in addition to jewellery
and property papers – Assets were found disproportionate to the
appellant’s known sources of income – Another separate case was
registered u/s. 13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) of the PC Act – During the course
of investigation, accused no. 2 claimed that he had entered into an
agreement to sale to purchase properties from accused no.3 and
since he (accused no.2) was not available on the date of execution
of the agreement, he had entrusted the amount of Rs. 80 lakhs to
the accused no.1 – Since, the accused no.1 house was raided, the
money was not paid and agreement to sale was not executed – Hence,
accused no. 2 and 3 sought recovery of money – However, the
respondent-investigation agency revealed that the market value fixed
by the State Government of the said properties was much below
Rs.80 lakhs – The license of the stamp vendor/accused no.4, through
whom the stamp papers of sale deed were issued, was cancelled in
the year 1992 and sale deed were issued in the year 2001 – So, the
respondent-investigative agency alleged that the accused no.1
conspired with accused no.2-4 to fabricate false deed of agreement
to sale for the purpose of being shielded from legal action in the
disproportionate assets case – The charges were framed – The
accused contended that complaint u/s.195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. was
necessary for prosecuting the case u/s.193, IPC – The contention
was rejected by the trial Court – The trial Court convicted the
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1020
1020
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1021
appellant/accused no.1 u/s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act as
well as ss.120B and 193 of the IPC and accused no.2 and 3 were
convicted u/s.120B and s.193 of the IPC – Before the High Court,
the accused no. 2 and 3 reiterated that the requirements of
s.195(1)(b)(i) and s.340, Cr.P.C. were not complied with prior to
framing of charge u/s. 193 of IPC – The said contention was again
rejected by the High Court – The High Court confirmed the trial
Court’s finding that the accused had conspired to fabricate false
evidence for shielding appellant/accused no.1 from prosecution in
the disproportionate assets case – Whether s.195(1)(b)(i),Cr.P.C.
bars lodging of case by the investigating agency u/s. 193, IPC, in
respect of offence of giving false evidence which is committed at
the stage of investigation, prior to production of such evidence
before the Trial Court – Held: S. 195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. will not bar
prosecution by the investigating agency for offence punishable u/
s.193, IPC, which is committed during the stage of investigation –
This is provided that the investigating agency has lodged complaint
or registered the case u/s. 193, IPC prior to commencement of
proceedings and production of such evidence before the trial Court
– In such circumstance, the same would not be considered an offence
committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court for the
purpose of s.195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. – Thus, appellants directed to
surrender for serving out the rest of their sentence, if they are not
already in custody.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b)(i) – Whether
an offence u/s.193, IPC committed at the stage of investigation,
prior to production of the false evidence before the trial Court by a
person who is not yet party to proceedings before the Trial Court, is
an offence “in relation to” a proceeding in any court u/s.
195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. – Held: The words “in relation to” u/s.
195(1)(b(i) appear to encompass situations wherein false evidence
has been fabricated prior to being produced before a Court of law,
for the purpose of being used in proceedings before the Court –
The Construction of the words “in relation to” must be controlled
by the overarching principle as stated in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai
and Sachida Nanda Singh, which was affirmed by the Constitution
Bench in Iq

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.