S. L. GOSWAMI versus HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 23-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·" 
' .... 
385 
S. L. GOSWAMI 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR 
November 23, 1978 
[P. S. KAJLASAM: D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Cognizance of an offence under section 466 l.P.C. with section 120-B, 
without the sanction of rhe Go1·crnn1c11t under .1·ection 196-A(2) of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, whether valid. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section I95(1)(c)-Scopc of-Ulhe1her the 
.sec/ion covers an oflencc under section 466 J.P.C. 
On a complaint by the Additional Registrar of the Madhya Pradesh High 
Court alleging that, while the. Paper Book in the Supreme Court appeal 
was being prepared, the appellant entered, into a conspiracy \vith two 
of the translators of the Court and tampered with the original deposition of 
one Dr. S. C. Barat (0.W. 1) in an earlier criminal case against the appellant 
\vhich was under appeal in the Supre1ne Court for which the aforesaid paper 
book was being prepared, t.he First Class Magistrate committed the appellant 
and two others to the Sessions Court to take their trial for offences ;under 
section 466 read •.vith section 120*B of the Penal Code. 
The appellant and 
another preferred a revision petition before the High Court against the said 
order of committal. 
The High Court dismissed the revision 'Petition. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
HELD: 
1. An offence under section 466 I.P.C. is covered by clause (c) of section 
195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and comes within the purview of that 
section, as the offence under section 463 I.P.C. is dealt within section 466 
l.P.C. Settion 466 I.P.C. is an aggravated form of forgery in that the forgery 
should relate to a document specified in that sect.ion. 
Section 466 I.P.C., is 
therefore an offence as described in section 463 T.P.C. which is committed 
A 
I! 
c 
D 
E 
in relation to a record or proceeding of or in a court of justice. 
[390F, J-1, 
F 
391A-B] 
The offences that fall within the purview of section 
t95(1)(c) 
Criminal 
P.C .. are offences described in section 463 I.P.C. and offences punishable under 
section 471, 475 or 476 of the Penal Code. The language of section 195(1) 
(c) of the Crl. P.C. is very significant for while referring to 
sections 
471, 
475 or 476 LP.C., it uses the word punfahable in the case of section 463 I.P.C. 
the words are 'the offences described in section 463'. 
An offence under sec-
tion 466 I.P.C. is an offence which falls within the description of section 463 
I.P.C., as the offence under section 463 I.P.C. i5 dealt with therein. 
[3918-D] 
Section 195 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code uses the words "of any 
offences punishable under section 172 ... " while in clause (b), the words used 
are "offences punishable under any of the following sections mentioned there-
in". 
In clause (c) the words are "of any offence described in section 463 
or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the same 
code". 
Thus a dear distinction is maintained in the section between offences 
G 
H 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
punishable under various sections mentioned and the offence 
described 
in 
section 463. 
Even on the test laid down in Govind Mehta v. State of Bihar, 
[1971] Suppl. S.C.R. 777, section 466 I.P.C. would be included within the pur-
view of section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (391D-E] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Govir1d Mehta v. State of Bihar, '[1971] Suppl. SCR 777; explained and 
over ruled. 
2. The requirement of section 195 ( 1) ( c) is that the document in question 
should be produced <Jr given in evidence in the proceeding before the Court. 
The offence committed must in some manner have affected the proceeding:-. 
or had been designed to affect them or come to light in the course of then1, 
but an offence co1nmitted after their conclusion is wholly outside. the scope of 
the provision. [392F-H, 393A] 
Legal Reniernbrancer of Govt. of West Bengal v. Hari Das Mundra, 
[1976] 2 SCR 933, applied. 
Pendyala Subbarayudu v. Gudii,ada Gopayya, A.LR. 1932 Mndras 290; 
approved. 
Nirmal Jit Sin;.:li Heon v. State of West Bengal a11d Anr., [1973] 2 
SCR 66 and Abdul Khadar and Ors. v. Meera Salieb, I.LR. 15 Mad. 
224; referred to. 
3. In the instant case (a) sectioo. !96A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 
is attracted and a comp1nint by the State Government or the Chief Presidency 
Magistrate empo,vcred in this behalf by the State Government in writing con-
senting to the initiation of the proceedings fo

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