LexPATEL LALJIBHAI SOMABHAI versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
834
B
c
D
J!l
F
G
H
PATEL LAUIBHAI SOMABHAI
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
May 7, 1971
[S. M. SIKRI, C. J,, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND
I. D. DUA, JJ.)
Cod• of Criminal Proc•dure, 1898-S•ctlon !9S(l)(c), Scop• of.
The ar.llant had filed a suit for the recovery of certain amount on
the basis o a foraed cheque. A private complaint waa filed in tho Court
ef the Judicial Maaistrate aaainst the appellant and another per•on for
otfencea punishable under sections 467 and 471 Penal Code. The Ma1is·
trate found primo focle evidence !hat the appellant bad fraudulenUy used
in the Civil Suit a forged cheque, and committed him to the Sessions for
trial. Tho appellant raised an objection tblit in view of aection !95(l)(C)
of tho Codo of Criminal Procedure no cognizance of the offence could
be taken on a private complainl Tho High Court upheld the commit·
meat erder. On tho scope and effect of aection 195(l)(C) and iii applica-
bility to cases where a forged document bas been produced as evidence in
a judicial proceeding by a party thereto and prosecution of that party is
aougbt for offences under sections 467 and 471 Penal Code,
HELD: The words "to have been committed by a party to any pro·
ceedina in any court" in section 195(1)(c) mean that the offence should
be alleged to have been committed by the party to the proceeding in his
character a• such party, that is, after havina become a party to the proceed·
ina. Sections 195(l)(C), 476 and 476A Code of Criminal Procedure, read
toaetber indicate that tho legi&lature could not have intended to extend tho
prohibition contained in section 195(1)(c) to tho offences mentioned therein
when committed by a party to a proceedina in that court prior to his be·
coming such party. Tho offences about which tho court alone, to the
exclusion of the aggrieved private parties, is clothed with the right to com-
plain, may be appropriately considered to be only those offences commit-
ted ·by a party to a proceeding in that court, the commission of which bas
a reasonably close nexus with the proceedings in that court so that it can,
without embarking upon a completely independent and fresh inquiry, satis-
factorily consider by reference principally to its records the expediency of
prosecuting the delinquent party. [842·D·H]
In this case the offence under section 471 Penal Code is clearly cover~
ed by the prohibition contained in section 195(1) (C); but the offence under
section 467 Penal Code can be tried in the absence of a complaint by the
Court unless it is shown by the t;vidence that documents in question were
forged by a party to the ear~er proceedin¥ in. his character as such a party;
in other words after the smt bad been mstituted. [847B]
Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh, I.L.R. [1953] All. 804 approved.
State of Gujarat v, A.Ii Bin Rajak, 9 Guj: Law Reporter I, Emperor v.
Mallappa, A.I.R. 1937 Born. 14, Har Prasad v. Hans Raj, A.l.R. 1966 All.
124, Vivekanond v. State A.I.R. 1969 All. 189, Harinath Singh v. State 1964
All. L. J. 467, Basir·u/.Haq v. State of West Bengal,
A.l.R. 1953 S.C.
293, Krishna Nair v, Stat• of Kerala, (1962) I Cr!. L. J. 340 and Stat• v.
Bhikubhol, A.I.R. 1965 Guj. 70, referred to.
SOl4ABHAI 1. GUJARAT (Dua, J.)
835
CiuMINAL APPELATB JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 169
A
of 1969.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 30, 1968
of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Reference No. 49 of 1966.
N. N. Keswani, for the appellant.
S. K. Dho/akia and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
The J uclgment 'Of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J.-This appeal with certificate under Art. 134(l)lc)
'Of the Constitution directed against the judgment and order of the
Gujarat High Court in criminal reference made by the Sessions
Judge, Ahmedabad, raises an important question of law on which
there appears to be conflict of judicial opinion. Even in the
Gujarat High Court the correctness of the majority view in the
Full Bench decision in the State of Gujarat v. Ali Bin Rajak(')
bas been doubted by the learned Judge hearing the criminal
reference in the present case, who followed the majority view
merely because he felt bound by it.
The learned single Judge
did not consider the case to be fit for reference to a larger
bench for reconsidering the majority view in the case of Ali Bin
Rajak(').
Certificate of fitness for appeal to this
Court was,
l!owever, granted by the learned Judge.
The question raised relates to the scopeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.