Skip to content


Akilandammal Vs. S. Balasubramania Iyer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 2492 of 1961
Judge
Reported inAIR1965Mad539; 1965CriLJ783
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 193, 467 and 471; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 195, 195(1), 463, 471, 475 and 476 to 479
AppellantAkilandammal
RespondentS. Balasubramania Iyer
Cases ReferredIn Raghubir Prasad Dudwalla v. Chamanlal Mehra
Excerpt:
.....section 479-a is restricted in its scope and confined only to offences of intentionally giving false evidence in any state of the judicial proceeding or intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any state of the judicial proceeding. regarding cases which do not strictly fall under section 479-a, to proceedings prescribed in section 476, criminal procedure code can be followed. in the present case the petitioner dishonestly used as genuine a receipt having known or had reason to believe it to be a forged document and thereby would be guilty of an offence under section 471, indian penal code. this offence is different from an offence under section 193 of the indian penal code, which relates to intentionally giving false evidence in any state of a..........cr.p.c. the trial court was of the view that s. 479-a cr.p.c. was applicable not only for giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence but also to cases in which forged documents were used as genuine documents. as no action was taken at the time of the delivery of the judgment, the trial court held that action could not be taken under section 476 cr.p.c. it also held that as the complaint was filed belatedly, 8 months after the judgment was pronounced, it was not expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioner should be prosecuted for the offence complained of. on appeal the learned district judge, madurai, held that the ban imposed under s. 479-a(6) cr.p.c. would apply to witnesses only and not to a party, who happened to be a witness. he also held that the delay of 8.....
Judgment:
(1) This petition is filed by the first defendant in O. S. No. 75 of 1958 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tirumangalam, against the order of the learned District Judge of Madurai directing a complaint to be laid against her offences under Ss. 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code.

(2) The respondent herein filed O. S. 75 of 1958 on the foot of a mortgage dated 10-4-1945 for Rs. 2150 executed in his favour by the petitioner herein. The petitioner put forward a receipt Ex. B.1 for a sum of Rs. 2000 on 9-4-1958 as evidencing payment of that amount towards the mortgage. The trial court held that the receipt Ex. B.1 was a forged document. The petitioner, who examined herself as a witness, stated that Ex. B.1 was a forged document. The petitioner, who examined herself as a witness, stated that Ex.B.1 was a genuine receipt given to her by the respondent. The two attestors to the receipt Ex. B.1 and the scribe also gave evidence in support of the genuineness of Ex. B.1 but we are not concerned with them in this petition. The trial court did not take action under S. 479-A Cr.P.C. Eight months after the disposal of the suit the respondent filed a petition No. 71 of 1960 before the learned District Munsif, Tirumangalam, praying that a complaint might be preferred against he petitioner under Section 476(1) Cr.P.C. The trial court was of the view that s. 479-A Cr.P.C. was applicable not only for giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence but also to cases in which forged documents were used as genuine documents. As no action was taken at the time of the delivery of the judgment, the trial court held that action could not be taken under Section 476 Cr.P.C. It also held that as the complaint was filed belatedly, 8 months after the judgment was pronounced, it was not expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioner should be prosecuted for the offence complained of. On appeal the learned District Judge, Madurai, held that the ban imposed under S. 479-A(6) Cr.P.C. would apply to witnesses only and not to a party, who happened to be a witness. He also held that the delay of 8 months was not a sufficient ground for refraining form giving a complaint. In the result the learned District Judge directed that a complaint be laid against he petitioner.

(2) Section 195(1), clauses (b) and (c) Cr.P.C. are as follows:

"195(1) No curt shall take cognizance-

(a)....................................

(b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely, Ss. 193, 194, 195, 196 etc. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court except on the complaint in writing of such court or of some other court to which such court is subordinate or

(c) of any offence described in S. 463 or punishable under S. 471, S. 475 or S. 476 of the same Code. when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such court, or of some other courts to which such court is subordinate".

Section 476, Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure for cases mentioned in S. 195 Cr.P.C. Section 476 Cr.P.C. provides that if a court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in S. 195, sub-section (1) clause (b) or clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such court may, after such preliminary inquiry, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the court and shall forward the same to a magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. Section 479-A Cr.P.C. was introduced by Act XXVI of 1955. Under this section, notwithstanding anything contained in Ss. 476 to 479, when a 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 perjury 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 proceedings, 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. Section 479-A(6) prohibits the taking of any proceedings under Ss. 476 to 479 for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if in respect of such a person proceedings may be taken under S. 479-A.

(3) A reading of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 195(1), Ss. 476 and 479-A makes it clear that when proceedings could be taken under S. 479-A proceedings under S. 476 are forbidden. S. 476, Cr.P.C. provides the procedure for a civil court making a complaint in respect of offences referred to in S. 195, sub-section (1) clauses (b) and (c), whereas Section 479-A is restricted in its scope and confined only to offences of intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. Regarding cases, which do not strictly fall under S. 479-A, the procedure prescribed in S. 476, Cr.P.C. can be followed.

(4) In this case the respondent filed a petition for prosecuting the petitioner under Ss. 463 and 471 I.P.C. It is admitted that there is no evidence that the petitioner in fact made a false document as required under S. 463 I.P.C. But it is not disputed that she dishonestly used as genuine Ex. B.1 having known or had reason to believe it to be a forged document and there by would be guilty under S. 471 I.P.C. We are, therefore, concerned only with the prosecution for the offence under S. 471 I.P.C. An offence under S. 471 I.P.C. consists in dishonestly using as genuine a forged document. This offence is different from an offence under S. 193 I.P.C. which relates to intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding.

S. 195(1)(b) Crl. P. C. deals with offences under Ss. 193 to 195 and other offences mentioned in the sub-section, while S. 195(1)(c) deals with offences under Ss. 163, 471, 475 or 476, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to a proceeding in any court. While S. 476 Crl. P. C. is the general provision regarding the procedure in all cases mentioned in S. 195(1)(b) and S. 195(1)(c). Sec. 479-A Crl. P. C. is restricted in its scope to persons appearing as witnesses and intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. Thus it will be seen that S. 479-A does not comprise offences enumerated under S. 195(1)(c) Crl. P. C. which includes an offence under S. 471 I.P.C. It is clear that an offence under S. 471 I.P.C. is not covered by the procedure prescribed under S. 479-A and therefore the procedure prescribed under S. 476 Crl. P. C. is not excluded.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Babulal v. State of U.P. it was held that offences of forgery and of

fabricating false evidence for the purpose of using it in a judicial proceeding were distinct and the offence of forgery was not included for the purpose specified in S. 479-A Crl. P.C. The Supreme Court also held.

"In any event, the offence penalised under S. 471 I.P.C. can never be covered by sub-section (1) of S. 479-A."

It was pointed out by the Supreme Court that the reference to the words "and S. 471" in an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Shambir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra, appear to have crept in by oversight. In Raghubir Prasad Dudwalla v. Chamanlal Mehra, 1964-1 SCJ 415 at page 416 (1964 (1) Crl. LJ 489 at p. 490) it was held.

"The special procedure of S. 479-A is prescribed only for the prosecution of a witness for the act of giving false evidence in any stage of judicial proceeding or for fabrication of false evidence for ht purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceeding. There is nothing in the section which precluded the application of any other procedure prescribed by the Code in respect of other offences".

The Supreme Court further observed:

"It will be unreasonable to read into S. 479-A the meaning that where a person who appears to have committed an offence under S. 193 I.P.C.--by giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence appears to have committed some other offence also, say, forgery for the very purpose of fabricating false evidence complaint for such other offence also can made under S. 479-A Crl. P. C."

The Supreme Court was of the opinion that S. 479-A has no application prosecution for offences other than an offence under S. 193 and cognate sections in Ch. XI and that as regards other offences Ss. 476, 477, 478 and 479 continue to apply even after the enactment of S. 479-A.

(5) For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no bar for the trail court to take proceedings under S. 476 Crl. P. C. for making a complaint to the magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.

(6) It has to be considered whether it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence. The court when it disposed of the suit, did not think it necessary in the interests of justice, to prosecute the petitioner. The court did not also subsequently take steps suo motu to prefer a complaint against the petitioner, but after an interval of eight months the respondent filed a petition for preferring a complaint against the petitioner. The District Munsif who heard the original suit and before whom the petition was filed did not think that the interests of justice required that the petitioner should be prosecuted. The petition is by the private party obviously to spite his opponent and the petition was filed after a lapse of eight months. In the circumstances the lower appellate court was not justified in interfering with the discretion of the trial court which disposed of the suit. Though this court would not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the lower appellate court in revision. I do not think that interests of justice require that a complaint should be made. In this view I allow the petition and set aside the order of the court below. There will be no order as to costs.

(7) Revision allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //