KHEMRAJ versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 753 · Decided: 19-11-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
. 
' 
• 
! 
KHEMRAJ 
v. 
STATE- OF MADHYA PRADESH 
November 19, 1975 
[M. H. BEG AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
753 
Indian Penal Code-Ss. 465 r/tv 471-Whether the State. appeal against the 
acquittal under Ss. 465 r /w 471. but conviction under section 420 l.P.C. com-
petent under section 417(2) dj the Criminal Prooedure Code, 1898-Scope of 
417(2) . 
'K' was charged and tried for the offences under Ss. 465 riw 471, for u~ing 
a forged B.Sc. Certificate and a Date of Birth Certificate, but convicted under 
section 420 I.P.C. by the trial court and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment 
for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 /-. On an appeal the conviction was 
maintained, but the sentence was a,ltered to one of six months Rigorous Impri-
sonment. 
On an appeal by the State and the Revision by 'K', the revision petition 
was dismissed and the appear allowed convicting him under Sections 465 & 
A 
B 
c 
471 Indian Penal Code and sentence~ to one year Rigorou;; Imprisonment. 
J} 
On an appeal by special leave. on the question of competency of the state 
appeal under section 417(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898, in a case 
investigated . by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, while dismissing the 
appeal. the Court 
HELD: (i) Under section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 
1946 (Act XXV of 1946) the powers and the jurisdiction of the Government 
to other areas iJJ a state, althoqgh not a Union Territory. 
Once there is an 
extension of the powers apd jurisdiction of the members of the Establishment, 
the members thereof while discharging such functions, are ·deemed to be members 
of the Police force of the area and <tre vested with such powers, functions and 
privileges and are subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that 
force. 
[756 BC] 
(ii) Investigation under the Delhi Act is a central investigation and the 
Central Government is concerned with the investigation of the cases by the 
Establishment and its ultimate result. It is in that background that in J 955, 
section 417 Cr-P.C. was amended adding sub section (2) in the section to pro-
vide for appeal against acquittal. [756 CE] 
(iii) This, however, does .not bar the jurisdiction of the State Govern~ent 
also to direct presentation of appeals when it is moved by· the Establishment. 
The Establishment can move either the Central Government or the State Govern-
ment. 
It will be purely a matter of procedure. [756 E] 
(iv) The word "also" in sub section (2) of section 417 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code does not bar the jurisdiction of the State Government to direct 
the public prosecutor to present an appeal even in cases investigated by the 
Establishment. Sub section (I) of section 417 is in general terms and would 
take in its purview all types of cases, since the expression used in that section 
is "in any case". 
[756-G-HJ 
E. 
( v) There is no limitation on the power of the State Government to direct 
institution of appeal with regard to any particular type of cases. 
Sub section 
H. 
(l) of section 4 I 7 being in general terms is as such of wider amplitude Sub-
section (2) advisedly uses the· word "also" when power is given to the Central 
Government in addition to direct the public prosecutor to appeal. [756H, 757A] 
A 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 2 S.C.R. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 134 
of 1975. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
1 lth December 1974 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal 
Revision No. 729 of 1970. 
-
} 
B 
S. S. Khanduja for the Appellant. 
c 
D 
E 
Ram Panjwani, Dy. Advocate Genl. (M.P.), Fl. S. Parihar and 
I. N. Shroff for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GOSWAMI, J. 
In this appeal by special leave the only point that 
arises for consideration is whether the appeal filed by the State 
of 
Madhya Pradesh in the High Court against the order of acquittal of 
the appellant under section 465 read with section 4 71 of the Indian 
Penal Code was competent under t~e law. 
The accused (appellant) secured an appointment of Senior Ope-
rator Trainee ir. the Bhilai Steel Project by submitting two forged 
certificates. The first certificate was regarding his passing the Bache-
lor of Science examination with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, 
in 2nd Division from the University of Sagar. The second document 
was .an attested copy of his Matriculation certificate in proof of age 
where his date of birth w

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