1. This application in revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Judicial Officer, Kotwali, Kanpur.
2. The facts of the case are that one Jagannath Prasad filed a civil suit against accused No. 1 in the Court of the learned 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur, for recovery of some money. That suit was transferred later to the Court of the learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur. The suit was contested by accused No. 1, who claimed adjustment of Rs. 2,000/- alleged to have been paid on 20th February, 1959 to Jagannath Prasad. In that connection and, in proof of his case accused No. 1 filed a letter, which was Ex. A. 23 and which was alleged to have been written by Jagannath Prasad. Jagannath Prasad, however, denied having written any such letter or having sent it to accused No. 1. The parties were allowed to lead evidence and, after considering the evidence, the learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur, found Ex. A. 23 to be a forged document, which was used by accused No. 1 for the purposes of the case. He, therefore, directed a complaint to be filed against both the accused persons. The learned Addl. Civil Judge directed a complaint to be filed against the two accused on an application filed by Jagannath Prasad. Accordingly a complaint was filed and that complaint came up for hearing before the learned Judicial Officer, Kotwali, Kanpur, where an objection was filed on behalf of the accused that the complaint was not entertainable as the learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge did not follow the provisions of Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judicial Officer, Kanpur, by his order dated 4th December, 1967 held that the complaint was Under Section 471, IPC and was maintainable and dismissed the application filed by the accused. Against the order passed by the learned Judicial Officer the present revision has been filed.
3. I have heard Sri, K. N. Seth, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, and Sri V. P. Goel, learned brief holder for the State. The learned Counsel for the State has raised three preliminary objections. His first objection is that since the applicants did not file any appeal or revi vision against the order of the learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge, ordering a complaint to be filed against them, this revision is not entertainabfe by this Court, I have given careful thought to the objection of the learned Counsel for the State but I find no force in it. Under Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has got very wide powers and it may be a rule of practice that before approaching this Court in a revision the applicant should have filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge but the mere fact that the applicants have come directly to this Court will not make the revision incompetent. I am supported in this view by the observations of a learned single Judge of this Court in Municipal Board v. Bhim Singh, : AIR1962All450 in which it was held as follows:-
It is the long standing practice of this Court and also of other High Courts not to entertain a revision application directly. The aggrieved party has first of all to approach the Sessions Judge who shall either make a reference to the High Court or dismiss the revision. If the party does not feel satisfied with the order of the Sessions Judge, he can then invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. But where the High Court entertains a revision directly without the party having approached the Sessions Judge, there would be no illegality; but a mere departure from the above practice. Further, where the party was not guilty of concealment of material facts, it will not be desirable to set aside the order of admission of the revision, even though the Judge may not have admitted the revision if it was brought to his notice that the party had not approached the Sessions Judge. In any case where the revision has remained pending before the w High Court for many months, it will not be desirable to vacate the order of admission already passed.
4. It has not been argued before me that there has been any concealment of any fact by the applicants. Moreover this application in revision was admitted on 15th April, 1968 and has been pending for more than two years and, therefore, I will not be justified in rejecting the revision only on the ground that the applicants did not approach the Sessions Judge before filing the revision in this Court. I, therefore, respectfully agree with the observations of the learned single Judge in : AIR1962All450 (supra) and do not find any force in the first objection of the learned Counsel for the State.
5. Sri V. P. Goel then raised a second preliminary objection to the effect that, Under Section 476-B, an appeal is provided against the order of the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge and, therefore, no revision could be entertained by this Court under the provisions of the Criminal procedtire Code. This objection also has no force because the applicants have not filed any revision against the order of the 1st Additional Civil Judge ordering a complaint to be filed by the Court. The present revision is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Officer, Kotwali, Kanpiy, dated 4th December, 1967, by which he dismissed the application of the applicants that the complaint was not entertainable in view of the fact that the provisions of Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, had not been followed.
6. The third objection of the learned Counsel for the State is that the Court which directed the prosecution of the applicants was a civil court and not a criminal court and as the Civil Court is not subordinate to this Court Under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, the application in revision cannot be entertained. According to the learned brief holder for the State only a revision Under Section 115 ,C. P. ..Ct years entertainable. This objection again has no force. The Judicial Officer, Kanpur, against whose order the revision is directed, is certainly a court subordinate to this Court and, therefore, the revision has been rightly filed in this Court and is entertainable. I, therefore, find no force in the three preliminary objections raised ' by the learned Counsel for the State. I now proceed to decide the revision on merits. :
7. Sri V. P. Goel, learned brief: holder for the State submitted that the com-' plaint against the accused was under Sec tion 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the only procedure laid down in respect of such a complaint is Under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, and, therefore, it was not necessary for the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge to follow the provisions of Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code.
8. In support of his contention Sri B. P. Goel placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Banch of this Court in Krishna Nand v. State of U. P., A.I.R. 1966 All 510 in which it was held as follows:-
As regards the offences Under Sections 471 and 466, IPC they do not clearly fall within the purview of Section 479-A of the Cr. P, C. Section 471 of Penal Code has been specifically mentioned in Section 195 (1) (c) of Cr.PC so, for that offence action could certainly be taken Under Section 476 of Cr, P.C. The sub-section also includes any offence described in Section 463 of Penal; Code. Section 466 of Penal Code prescribes punishment for forgery of record' of Court or of public register, etc. The.-, essentials of the offence are:-
1. That the accused forged the document.
2. That the document forged is one of the kinds specified in the section.
So, a complaint on the charges Under Sections 466 and 471 of the I. PC. could be filed Under Section 476 of the Cr.PC These offences are not covered by sub-see-tion (l)of Section 479-A of the Cr.PC.
9. In the sarae case it was held by the Division Bench that:-
In relation to the prosecution of any person appearing before a Court as a witness for giving false evidence or fabricating fake evidence, Section 479-A engrafts an exception to Section 476 Cr.PC Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A makes it clear that die provisions of that section alone are applicable and not the provisions of Sections 476 to 479 for the prosecution of a witness who has given or fabricated false evidence.
10. It was further laid down in Krishna Nand's case A.I.R. 1966 All 510 that:-
The special procedure prescribed Under Section 479-A is only for the prosecution of a witness for the act of giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding or for fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. Such acts have been made punishable Under Section 193 and cognate sections in Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code.
11. Sri B. P. Goel next placed reliance on the decision of a learned single judge of this Court in Jia Lai v. State of U. P. : AIR1967All420 in which an Ijazatnama was filed in a proceeding before a Magistrate and was proved by witness and it was, therefore, held that proceedings Under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, alone were competent against such accused and those witnesses and not proceedings Under Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code.
12. Sri B. P. Goel then placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Babu Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, : 1964CriLJ555 in which it was held as follows:-
It is clear from the terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A that the procedure prescribed thereby alone applies if the case falls within Sub-section (1) of that section. But Sub-section (1) has a limited operation; it applies only to the prosecution of a witness appearing before the Court, who has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. The Sub-section may therefore be resorted to only in a case which falls within the first Paragraph of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and allied Sections 194 and 195 when it is committed by a witness appearing before the Court. The phraseology used in Section 479-A is plain and unambiguous; it excludes the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed Under Sections 476 to 479, in respect of offences specified in Section 195 (1) (b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure only where a person appearing before the Court as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence far the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. An offence punishable Under Section 471 Indian Penal Code baiting one of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine any document which the accusd knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, does not fall within the category contemplated by Section 479 (1) of tie Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the authority of the Court to act under .Section 476 of the Code is not impaired by Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A .... In any event the offence penalised Under Section 471 Indian Penal Code can never be for taking proceeding against a person who is found to have used a false document dishonestly or fraudulent-: ly in any judicial proceedings resort may only be had to Section 476 Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code deals with using as genuine a forged document and reads as follows:-
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
13. Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code applies to a case where an accused fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document as genuine. It is general in its terms. The use of a foraed' document in Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code can be made anywhere and it is not confined to judicial proceedings. Section 471 does not relate to the use of a forged document in judicial proceedings.
14. Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code deals with punishment for false evidence and reads as follows:-
Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with' imprisonment, of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
15. Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, as is clear, is a specific provision and relates to a case where an accused gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding.
16. It is well established that where there is a specific provision that will override the general provision and Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code overrides Section 471 of that Code. In the instant ease the complaint lodged by Jagannath Prasad against the applicants was that Ex. A-28, which was found to be a forged document, was used for the purposes of the case by accused No. 1 in a judicial proceeding in the suit which was being tried by the learned 1st Additional Civil judge, Kanpur.
17. Section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with procedure in certain cases of false evidence and the relevant portion of that section is as follows:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 476 to 479 inclusive, when any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding, and that, for the eradication of the evils of penury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court setting forth the evidence which, in the opinion of the Court is false or fabricated and forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, and may, if the accused is present before the Court, take sufficient security for his appearance before such Magistrate and may bind over any person to appear and give ' evidence before such Magistrate;
(6) No proceeding shall be taken Under Sections 476 to 479 inclusive for the prose cution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if in respect of such a person proceedings may be taken under this section.
18. The charges against the two accused have all the ingredients mentioned in Section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and the only procedure which had to be followed in respect of the complaint lodged against the accused was Under Section 479-A and in view of Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A no proceeding could be taken against the accused Under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
19. Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as to how the Court is to Proceed in case of prosecuting a person for intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judical proceeding and if it provides a certain manner of doing so then it is only in that manner that action can be taken for prosecuting a person for intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceeding Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A makes it clear that the provisions of that sub-section create a bar against any proceeding being taken Under Sections 476 to 479 for the prosecution of a witness who has given or fabricated false evidence in a judicial proceeding. It was held by the Supreme Court in Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh, : 1967CriLJ6 as follows:-
The matter has to be considered from three stand points. Does the swearing of the raise affidavits amount to an offence Under Section 199, Indian Penal Code or under either Section 191 or 192, Indian Penal Code? If it comes under the two latter sections, the present prosecution cannot be sustained. Section 199 deals with a declaration and does not state that the declaration must be on oath. The only condition necessary is that the declaration must be capable of being used as evidence and which any Court of justice or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence. Seetion 191 deals with evidence on oath and Section 192 with fabricating false evidence. If we consider this matter from the stand point of Section 191, Indian Penal Code, the offence is constituted by swearing falsely when one is bound by oath to state the truth because an affidavit is a declaration made under an oath. The definition of be offence of giving false evidence thus applies to the affidavits....
Section 479-A lays down a special procedure which applies to persons who appear as witnesses before civil, revenue or criminal Courts and do one of two things: (i) intentionally give false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding, or (if) intentionally fabricate false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. The first refers to an offence Under Section 191/193 and the second to that Under Section 192/193 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of such offences when committed by a witness, action Under Section 479-A alone can be taken. The appellants were witnesses in the inquiry in the High Court and they had fabricated false evidence. If any prosecution, was to be started against them the High Court ought to have followed the Procedure Under Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Not having done so the action Under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not open because of Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A and the order under appeal cannot be allowed to stand.
20. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Baban Singh's case : 1967CriLJ6 I find force in the contention raised by Sri K. N. Seth and this revision has, therefore, to be allowed. I, therefore, allow the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Officer Kotwali, Kanpur, dated 4th December, 1967 and quash the complaint filed by Jagannath Pra-sad against the applicants.