DR. S. DUTT versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 18-08-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
' 
E 
G 
H 
DR. S. DUTI 
v. 
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 
August 18, 1965 
(K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULL'i\H AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 195-Sanctlon oj 
Court for prosecution for offences committed during judicial proceedings-
Court refusing sanction in respect of alleged offence under s. 193 l.P.C.-
Prosecution on same facts for offences under s. 465 ands. 471 I.P.C. where 
no sanction required-Whether proper. 
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860). ss. 193, 196 and 471-lngredlentJ 
of-Meaning of 'dishonestly', 'fraudulently' and 'corrupt'. 
The appellant was examined as a forensic expert in a sessions trial. 
He claimed to hold a diploma in criminology which he produced before 
the Sessions Judge on being asked to do so. On the basis of the appellant'• 
testimony the accused were acquitted. On the allegation that the diploma 
produced by the appellant was a forged one the prosecution applied to 
the Sessions Judge under s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for 
prosecution of the appellant under s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The 
application was rejected by the Sessions Judge. 
Subsequently on a report 
being lodged wih the police the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence~ 
under ss. 465 and 4 71 of the Penal Code. The appellant objected at his 
trial for these offences that he could not be legally prosecuted as the 
facts disclosed offences under ss. 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code 
and not under ss. 465 and 471 with which he was charged. He alleged 
that the prosecution was attemp~ing to evade the provisions of s. 195 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
The trial court having overruled the 
appeJlant's objections, he went in revision to the High Court and having 
failed there as well, he appealed to this Court by &pecial leave. 
HELD : ( i) The evidence did not disclose any offences under ss. 465 
and 471, but rather offences under s. 193 and 196 l.P.C. 
The distinc-
tion between sections 465 and 471 on the one hand and 193 and 196 on 
the other is that the gist of the offence in the first group is the making of 
a false document and the gist of the offences in the second group is the 
procuring of fa1&e circumstances or the making of a document containing a 
false statement so that a judicial officer may form a wrong opinion in a 
judicial proceeding on the faith of the false evidence. Another important 
difference is that whereas s. 471 requires a user to be either fraudulent, 
dishonest or both, s. 196 is satisfied if the user is corrupt. 
it was not 
alleged that the appellant himself forged the diploma and therefore s. 465 
was not attracted. For s. 471 it is necessary that the forged document is 
'used' by the accused 'dishone•tly' and 'fraudulently'. Even if production 
of the document at the behest of the court can amount to 'using' the 
document, it could not be said to have been used 'dishonestlv' as the 
appellant did not intend to cause wrongful gain to himself or· wrongful 
loss to another. Nor could he he said to have used it 'fraudulently' within 
the meaning of s. 25 of the Penal Code, that is to say, with "intent to 
defraud", inasmuch as his intention in 
producing the certificate was 
not to cau&e any one to act to his disadvantage. since he only complied 
with the order of the Court. [499 H-500 B; ·503 B-E] 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 1 S.C.L 
The prosecution of the appellant for offences under ss. 465/471 I.P.C. 
A 
could not therefore be allowed to continue. [504 A-Bl 
Assistant Sessions Judge North Arcot v. Ramammal, I.L.R. 36 Mad. 
387, Ma Ain Lon v. Ma On Nu, A.l.R. [1925] Rangoon 191 and Walham 
\'. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1961] A.C. 103 and In re London 
and Globe Finance Corpn.. Ltd., [1903] 1 Ch. 728, referred to. 
(ii) If the appellant gave false evidence in court or if he fabricated 
false evidence the offence under s. 193 was clearly committed. Again when 
B 
he used his diploma as genuine his conduct was 'corrupt' within the mean-
ing of that word as used in s. 196. That section includes conduct which 
though neither fraudulent nor dishonest is otherwise blame-worthy or im-
proper. [501 A-B; 500 H] 
Emperor v. Rana Nana, 1.L.R. 46 Born. 317 and Bobkhranjan Gupta v. 
The King, I.L.R. [1949] 2 Cal. 440, referred to. 
The evidence thus disclosed that the appellant committed offences under 
C 
ss. 193 and 196 of the Penal Code. For prosecution under these sections, 
the sanction of the Court in writing w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.