KAMLA PRASAD SINGH versus HARI NATH SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 27-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·, 
KAMLA PRASAD SINGH 
A 
v. 
HARi NATH SINGH & ANR. 
April 27, 1967 
[M. HIOAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
B 
1"dia11 Pcm1/ Code. (45 of 1860) Ss. 192 a11d 218 -Difference-Fals• 
e\.·idence used in judicial proceedi'ngs--Public servant prepared false 
re~ 
eol'(/--P1ivu1e coniolaint. if can be made. 
9ocle of Criminal Proced11re, (5 of 1898) S. 195-False evidence 
used in j1iilicial procetili11gs-Public se1Tant prepared false record-Pri-
t.•ate c:o1nplaint if c,111 be 1nade. 
The "PP•llanl, a private ·rerson, filed three complaints under s. 2.18 
1.P.C. for the prosecution o respondent 1 charging him in each cue 
with abetment of offences committed by three public 5ervants. In each 
complaint respondent I was a co-accused with another-in one with an 
Ahlmad of Tahsildar's Court. in another with one Lekhpal, and in the 
third with the another 'Lekhpal. 
The Ahimud was alleged to have inten-
tionally made a false entry about the case intending that the false entry 
should he used in a judicial· proceeding and wrong opinion be formed, 
11>' Lekhmrh: were 
alle~ed to have caused the preparation of an 
in-
correct Khasra knowing to .be likely thnt they would thereby cause loss 
or injury to the appellant. The responclenr I filed an application under 
s. 56(-A Cr.P.C. stating that the offence. if any, was one under s. 193 
J.P.C. and the provisions of Ii, 195 Cr.P.C. barred 
private complaints, 
which the High Court accepted. 
In appeal, this Court, 
HELD : The bar of private complaints applied to the case of Ahlmad, 
but not to those of Lekhpals. [832 C·Dl 
The difference between ss. 192 and 218 I.P.C. is that the former deals 
with judicial proceeding and the false evidence is intended to be used in 
a judicial proceedings. while the 111.tter deals_ with public servants, and, 
there the gist is the international preparation of false record with a view 
of savin~ or injuring any person or property and need not have relation 
to a judicial proceeding us such. (830 DJ 
Section 19:! J.P.C. covers the case against tho Ahlmad and l'Ollpott· 
dent I und the offence is punishable under •. 193 I.P.C. which i• men-
tioned in '· 195(1l(b) Cr.P.C. 
No Court can take cognizance of an 
offence under s. 193 except on the complaint in writing of such court. 
The alleged offence against the Lekhpals and respondent 1, their abettor, 
in the other two cases was of a different order. ThO' offence of a. 2.18 
l.P.C. is not a minor offence included withins. 192. It is distinct offence 
which can be proceeded agninst without the baT of s. 195 Cr.P.C. 'Ibe 
offence wus complete the moment the false record was made with the 
said intention and it was not necessary for the completion of this offence 
that the record should be used in a judicial proceeding so .. to cause 
an erroneous opinion tq be formed touching on a point material to the 
result of such ·proceeding. In the Ahlmad's 
case this latter condition 
""" the most important ingredient. [831 B.C, D-0] 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
J.UR!SDICTION : Criminal 
Appeals 
Nos. 244·246 of 1964. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
K. P. SINGH v. H. N. SINGH (Hidayatu/lah, J.) 
S29 
A 
Appeals from. the judgment and order dated February 19, 
1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Applications 
Nos. 1853, 3043 and 3044 of 1963. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
W. S. Barlingay, J. C. Jalwar and R. L. Kohli, for the appe-
llant (in all the appeals). 
J. P. Goyal and R. B. Pathak, for respondent No. 1 (in all 
the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullab, J. Kamla Prasad Singh the appellant had filed 
three complaints in the Court of the Additional District Magis-
trate (Judicial) Varanasi for the prosecution of Harinath Singh 
(resPondent No. 1) under s. 218 Indian Penal Code. In each 
of these complaints Harinath was a co-accused with another.. In 
one, it was Mangla Prasad Pandey, Ahlmad, Court of Tahs!ldar, 
Sadar Varanasi, in another it was Ramchander Lekhpal of V !Uage 
Balua and in the third it was Ram Samravlal Lekhpal of Village 
Cholapore. 
In each case Harinath Singh was said to have 
abetted the offence committed by his co-accused. The circums-
tances in which the complaints were lodged were common and 
may now be briefly stated. 
Certain Bhumidari lands in these villages were the property of 
Nankoo s/o Mehar Singh and Stimitra widow of one Ajudhia 
Singh. On December 4, 1962, Nankoo sold his half share to 
Kamla Prasad Singh and some otliers. 
Kamla Prasad's 
com-
plaint i

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