SACHIDA NAND SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 492 · Decided: 03-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SACHIDA NAND SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
)-. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1998 
B 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
-I 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973~Sections 195(J)(b) (ii) and 
340(1)-Bar against prosecution in respect of offences of forgery under 
c 
section 463 or punishable under sections 471, 475 or 476 of Indian Penal 
Code committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in 
a proceeding in a court-Forgery of documents committed before said 
document was produced in court-Held, bar under section 195(1)(b) (ii) not 
applicable--Indian Penal Code, 1872-Sections 463, 471, 475 and 476. 
~. 
D 
Interpretation of Statutes·-Construction Provision curbing general 
jurisdiction of the Court should receive strict construction-Construction 
capable of causing mischievou~ consequences should be averted 
Second respondent filed a complaint against appellants in the Court of 
Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging offences under Section 468, 469 and 471 
E of the Indian Penal Code, 1872. The appellants had forged a document (a 
certified copy· of Jamabandi-Rent Roll) and produced it in the court of 
Executive Magistrate which was then dealing with proceedings under Section 
145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chief Judicial Magistrate 
forwarded the complaint to the police as provided in Section 156(3) of the 
F 
Code. Polici~ registered an FIR on the basis of the said complaint and after 
investigation laid a charge-sheet against appellants. The Chief Judicial 
Magistrate took cognizance and i~sued process to the appellants. The 
--< 
appellants iiled a petition before the High Court under section 482 of the 
Code for quaslling the prosecution on the ground that the magistrate could 
not have taken cognizance of the offences in view of bar contained in section 
G 195(1)(b)(ii) of taking cognizance ofoffence of forgery ifoffence is committed 
in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in 
a court. 
... 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that if the offence 
alleged is with respect to a document which reached the court then the 
H aforesaid bar operates, no matter whether the offence was committed before 
492 
\ 
S.N. SINGH v. ST A TE 
493 
or after its production in court. The decision in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai 's A 
., ' 
case is not relevant as the decision was rendered under the corresponding 
provision of the old Code which has.a subtle difference from the new provision 
in Section 195(l)(b)(ii) of the Code because of absence of the words "by a 
party to any proceedings in any court" in the new code. The ratio laid down 
in Gopalakrishna Manon's Case would hold the field since thl)t decision was B 
rendered under the new code. 
y 
The first respondent argued that the slight change made in Section 
' 
195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code vis-a-vis the corresponding provision in the old Code 
was not for deviating from the legal position settled by the court in Patel 
Laljibhai Somabhai 's case. The only object for deletion of those words was c 
to advance the protection of section 195(l)(b)(ii) to other persons as well who 
might not have been parties to the litigation. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I.I. The bar contained in Section 195 (l)(b)(ii) of the Code of o' 
criminal Procedure is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document 
" 
was committed before the document was produced in a Court. [501-F] 
.. 
1.2. Section 340(1) of the Code has an interlink with section 195(l)(b). 
So no complaint can be made by a court regarding any offence falling within 
the ambit of Section 195(l)(b) of Code without first adopting procedural E 
requirements of Section 340(1). The scope of the preliminary enquiry 
envisaged in section 340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence 
affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect ofa document 
produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In 
• 
other words, ttie offence should have been committed during the time when 
the document was in custodia /egis. It would be a strained thinking that any F 
offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precints 
... 
of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated 
as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document 
~, 
later reached the Court records. [497-G; 498-D-G[ 
_J 
Patel Laljibhai Somabhaiv. The State of Guj

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