STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SK. BANNU AND SHANKAR

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 12-09-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

D 
E 
F 
G 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v .. 
SK. BANNU AND SHANKAR 
September 12, 1980 
\ 
IR. s. SARKARIA AND 0 .. CHINNAPPA REDDY] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898-Section 195(1) (b) and (c) and Section 
476-Scope of. 
Words and phrases--"ln or in relation to"-meaning of. 
Section 195(1)(b) of the. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 provides that 
no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 205 
(among othe:rs) I.P.C. when such offence: is· alleged to have been committed 
in or in relation to any proceedings in any Court, except on the complaint 
in writing of such Court. Clause (c) of this sub-section, provides that no Court 
shall 
take 
cognizance 
of 
any 
offence 
described 
in, 
among 
others, 
section 
471 
when 
snch 
offence 
is 
alleged 
to 
have · been 
commit-
ted by a party to any proceedings in any Court in respect of a 
document produced except on the complaint in writing of such Court. Sec-
tion 476 Cr.P.C. provides that when any Criminal Court is, whether on appli-
cation made to it or otherwise, of opinion that it is expedient in the interests 
of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in sec-
tion !95(1)(b) and (c) which appears to have been committed in or in relation 
to a proceeding in that court such court may make a complaint thereof and 
forward tbe same to a Magistrate First Class. 
The prosecution alleged that in an application for release of a person 
arrested under the Bombay Prohibition .Act on bail accused no. 2 identified 
the surety and that he attested the bail application. 
Accused no. 3 was the 
scribe of the bail application and the affidavit accompanying it. The Magistrate 
ordered his release on bail. 
The case was transferred to another judicial magistrate who, when' the 
accused failed to appear before him on the elate of hearing, i~sued notice to 
tbe surety. 
The person to whom the no1tice was issued (the purported surety) 
appeared before the Magistrate and stated that he had never stood surety in 
the case, nor had he ever made an affidavit nor signed any papers in this, 
regard and being a literate person there was no question of putting his thumb 
impression on the affidavit and bail bond. 
· Accused no. 1 who was later named by accused no. 2 ~s the real surety 
admitted before the trial Magistrate that the bail application and the affidavit 
had been thumb marked by him at the instance of accused no. 2 and that 
he had no knowledge about the contents either of the application or of the 
H 
affidavit. 
The Magistrate made a complaint to the judi)!ial Magistrate, First 
Class for prosecution of the three accused for the offences under sections 205, 
419, 465, 467 and 471 IPC. 
On finding that there was a prima facie case 
against all the accused the Magistrate committed them for trial. 
i 
I 
MAHARASHTRA V. S. K. HANNU 
695 
The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused no. 3 but found accused 
A 
no. 1 guilty·of offence under sections 205, 419, 465 and 471 I.P.C. and accused 
no. 2 for offences under section 205 read with sections 109, 419, 465 and 471 
read with section 109 I.P.C. and sentenced them variously. 
On appeal by accused nos. 2 and 3 the High Court held that the proceed-
ings before the transferee Magistrate were not the same proceedings or conti-
nuation of the same proceedings which were before the previous court in 
which or in relation to which the offence was committed within the meaning 
of section 476 read with section ·195, Cr.P.C. and that such a complaint could 
have been made only by the magistrate who released the accused on bail prior 
to the initiation of the case or his successor in office in that court but since 
the transferee Magistrate was not the successor in office of the Magistrate grant-
ing the bail, the proceedings before the committing Magistrate were without 
jurisdiction. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD : 1. The High Court was not right in holding that the bail proceed-
ings before the 'first' Magistrate were "distinct and different" from those initiated, 
on police challan before the transferee Court and that, therefore, the latter was 
not competent to hold a preliminary inquiry under section 476 Cr.P.C. and/ or 
to make a complaint for prosecuion' of the respondents in respect of offences 
under sections 205, 419, 465, 467 and 471 IPC. [706A-C]. 
, 
2. An offence under section 205 I.P.C. will fall 
within the 
ambit of 
clause (b) and an offence under section 471 IPC, will fall 

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