LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.; “According to the aforesaid offensive elements the Revisionist during the course of investigation in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. has only stated that Ravi Setia in order to play fraud prepared the letter by committing forgery, whereas the Junior Accountant Atar Singh in the office of the Revisionist has stated during his statements dated 19.05.1992 that the alleged letter dated 10.04.1992 has not been dispatched by him, rather it has been dispatched by the Assistant Employee Raghuvir Singh. In this way in the context of the writing of said letter, it was necessary to send the writing of the Class IV Employee Raghuvir Singh to the Handwriting Expert at FSL. Further, the FSL in its Report No. 37/97 dated 31.01.1998 has given this conclusion that the specimen signatures of the Revisionist and disputed signatures upon matching mark Q­1 and Q­2 have been stated to be forged one. But in this conclusion it has also been mentioned that it has not been established as to these signatures are of whom and these signatures would have made by Ravi Setia. In this way letter the letter dated 10.04.1992 would have prepared by the Respondent No. 2 in a forged manner, at this stage, it has not become clear in any manner. Therefore, at 11 this stage, there is no ground available for taking cognizance against the Respondent No. 2 under Section 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.”- Holding that the Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the present case, the Revisional Court vide its judgment dated 21.07.2003 has directed the court below to pass an order in accordance with law on the basis of evidence available. Hence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate looked into the material on record and came to conclusion that there are no sufficient material for taking cognizance against the accused.


1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1845 OF 2017
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 4073 OF 2017)
SENIOR MANAGER (P&D),RIICO LTD.  APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR            RESPONDENTS
  
J U D G M E N T
    ASHOK BHUSHAN J.
This   appeal   has   been   filed   against   judgment   dated
07.02.2017   of   Rajasthan   High   Court   dismissing   Single   Bench
Criminal   Miscellaneous   Petition   which   was   filed   by   the
appellant   questioning   the   judgment   dated   22.07.2011   of
Additional   Sessions   Judge   dismissing   the   Criminal   Revision
Petition preferred by the appellant.
2. The   facts   giving   rise   to   this   appeal   disclose   several
stages of litigation arising out of First Information Report
2
lodged by appellant dated 29.04.1992 under Section 420 IPC.
3. The   brief   facts   of   the   case   necessary   to   be   noted   for
deciding this appeal are:
A   letter   dated   10.04.1992   was   purported   to   be   issued   by
Regional Manager, RIICO, Sriganganagar to the Respondent No. 2
M/s. Kanha Refined Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. through Ravi
Setia(Partner).   The   appellant   who   was   working   as   Regional
Manager and had allegedly signed the above letter when came to
know about the letter dated 10.04.1992, he asked Respondent
No. 2 on 23.04.1992 to produce the original copy of the letter
within 24 hours. The letter was not produced before the office
of   Respondent   No.   2   rather   on   27.04.1992   the   letter   was
produced   by   his   counsel   in   Suit   Case   No.   2/84   titled   M/s.
Kanha Refined Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. Vs. RIICO Limited.
On 29.04.1992 the appellant filed a First Information Report
No. 184 under Section 420 IPC alleging that on 10.04.1992 a
letter   has   been   forged   by   Respondent   No.   2   and   got   it
dispatched from the office by a Class IV employee, Raghuvir
Singh   on   10.04.1992.   It   is   alleged   that   by   playing   fraud,
forged and bogus document has been prepared by Respondent No.
2 hence, offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are made
out. FIR was registered under Section 420.
 A Final Report was
3
submitted   by   the   Inspector,   Police   Station   Kotwali.   In   the
Final   Report,   it   was   mentioned   that   since   the   letter   dated
10.04.1992   has   been   filed   in     Case   No.   2/84,   in   view   of
provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. the police cannot
investigate the matter. The Final Report was accepted by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 22.05.1998, relying
on   Section   195(1)(b)(ii)   Cr.P.C.
  The   appellant   filed   a
Criminal   Revision   before   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge   who
vide  his order dated 01.05.2000 set aside the order of Chief
Judicial Magistrate and remanded the matter. The Trial Court
passed a fresh order granting opportunity of hearing to the
complainant.   The   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate   after   the   remand
again   relying   on   Section   195(1)(b)(ii)   Cr.P.C.   held   that
letter having been filed in civil suit, cognizance cannot be
taken. The Protest Petition was dismissed and Final Report was
accepted.
  The   Criminal   Revision   was   filed   by   the   appellant
challenging the order dated 12.03.2003. The Revisional Court
held that the provision of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is
not   applicable   to   the   facts   of   the   present   case.   The
Revisional Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this
court in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,
(1998) 2 SCC 493, where it was held that when the document
before producing in the Court has been prepared in a forged
4
manner, provision of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. cannot be
made applicable. The Revisional Court set aside the order of
subordinate   court   and   directed   the   court   below   to   pass   an
order  in   accordance   with   law,   on  the   basis   of   evidence
available on file. 

4. Operative portion of the judgment is as follows:
"ORDER
Hence,   by   allowing   the   Revision   of   the
Revisionist, the order dated 12.03.2003 is
hereby  set­aside and Subordinate Court is
hereby ordered that it shall pass an order
afresh   in   accordance   with   law,   on   the
basis   of   evidence   available   on   file   and
after   granting   opportunity   of   hearing   to
the   Complainant.   The   Case   File   shall   be
produced   before   the   Subordinate   Court   on
08.08.2003.”
5. After the order of Revisional Court, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate   again   considered   the   matter   and   by   order   dated
20.06.2009   rejected  the  Protest  Petition   of  appellant.   The
Chief   Judicial   Magistrate   noticed   the   order   of   the
Revisional Court that benefit of         Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C.   can   not   be   granted   to   the   accused   in   the   present
case.  The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not rely on Section
195(1)(b)(ii)   Cr.P.C.   rather   looking   to   the   materials   on
record   came   to   the   conclusion   that  prima facie  case   of
5
forged   document   and   playing   fraud   have   not   been   made   out
against   the   accused.   Aggrieved   against   the   order   dated
20.06.2009, a Revision Application was also filed before the
Court   of   Additional   Sessions   Judge   by   the   appellant   which
has been dismissed on 22.07.2011. The order dated 22.07.2011
was   challenged   before   the   High   Court   by   filing   a   petition
under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.   which   has   been   dismissed   by   the
High Court on 07.02.2017 which order is under challenge in
this appeal.
6. Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant
submitted   that   in   the   present   case   the   forged   letter   dated
10.04.1992   was   filed   in   Civil   Court   on   27.04.1992   that   is
subsequent   to   letter   having   been   forged.   The   provisions   of
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. were not attracted and there was
no prohibition in law in taking cognizance of the offence. He
submitted that the Respondent No. 2 was the beneficiary of the
letter which was addressed to him hence the courts below ought
to   have   taken   cognizance   of   the   offence.   He   submitted   that
Courts below committed error in not taking cognizance of the
offence.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 refuting
the   submission   of   counsel   for   the   appellant   contended   that
6
present   is   a   case   where   there   is   no   issue   pertaining   to
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. He submitted that learned Chief
Judicial   Magistrate   in   his   order   dated   20.06.2009   has   not
dismissed the Protest Petition on the ground of bar of Section
195(1)(b)(ii)   Cr.P.C.   rather   has   after   considering   the
evidence on record held that no prima facie case has been made
out against the Respondent No. 2 for taking cognizance of the
offence.   He   further   submitted   that   from   the   evidence   on
record, it is clear that letter was dispatched from the office
of Regional Manager and it has further come on record that a
Class   IV   employee   Shri   Raghuvir   Singh   of   the   office   has
dispatched the letter. He submitted that there is no material
on record to even prima facie suggest that the Respondent No.
2  is  involved  in  forging  the  letter.  He submitted  that  the
courts below after considering the materials have rightly come
to the conclusion that no case has been made out to allow the
Protest Petition filed by the appellant.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the record.   In so far as,
submission of the appellant regarding   Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. the law is not well settled by the Constitution Bench
judgment that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted
only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have
7
been committed with respect to a document after it has been
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.
The   Constitution   Bench   in  Iqbal   Singh   Marwah   &   Anr.   Vs.
Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370 in para 33 & 34 had
held:
“33. In view of the discussion made above,
we   are   of   the   opinion   that   Sachida   Nand
Singh (1998) 2 SCC 493 has been correctly
decided and the view taken therein is the
correct   view.   Section   195(1)(b)(ii)   CrPC
would be attracted only when the offences
enumerated in the said provision have been
committed with respect to a document after
it has been produced or given in evidence
in   a  proceeding   in   any   court   i.e.   during
the time when the document was in custodia
legis.

34. In the present case, the Will has been
produced in the court subsequently. It is
nobody's   case   that   any   offence   as
enumerated   in   Section   195(1)(b)(ii)   was
committed   in   respect   to   the   said   Will
after it had been produced or filed in the
Court   of   District   Judge.   Therefore,   the
bar created by Section 195(1)(b) (ii) CrPC
would not come into play and there is no
embargo on the power of the court to take
cognizance of the offence on the basis of
the   complaint   filed   by   the   respondents.
The   view   taken   by   the   learned   Additional
Sessions   Judge   and   the   High   Court   is
perfectly   correct   and   calls   for   no
interference.”
9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, present is a
8
case where letter dated 10.04.1992 is claimed to be a forged
letter not signed by appellant. From the materials on record,
it is clear that the said letter dated 10.04.1992 was filed
before the Court on 27.04.1992 in Case No. 2/84. There is no
case that forgery was committed after the letter was filed in
the   Court.     Thus,   provision   under   Section   195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C.   was   not   attracted.     A   perusal   of   the   Final   Report
which was submitted by Inspector, Police Station Kotwali, it
is clear that the Inspector after conducting an investigation
ultimately   concluded   that   in   view   of   Section   195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. Police cannot investigate the matter. The Final Report
is filed as Annexure P.4.  A perusal of which also indicates
that   the   Inspector,   obtained   the   Original   Letter   dated
10.04.1992 from the Case No. 2/84 and had sent writing of the
undisputed  script   and   specimen   script   of   appellant   to
handwriting expert and opinion was obtained that signatures of
S.K. Sharma on letter dated 10.04.1992 was forged.
10. After the remand by Revisional Court on 01.05.2000, the
Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 12.03.2003 again
relied   on   Section   195(1)(b)(ii)   Cr.P.C.   for   coming   to   the
conclusion that cognizance cannot be taken. Criminal Revision
was filed against the said order before the Revisional Court
and Revisional Court  vide  its judgment dated 21.07.2003 has
9
decided   the   issue   of   Section   195(1)(b)(ii)   Cr.P.C.   The
Revisional Court held that the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)
(ii)   Cr.P.C.   are   not   attracted.     The   Revisional   Court  vide
its order dated 21.07.2003 set aside the order of Subordinate
Court and directed the Subordinate Court to pass a fresh order
in accordance with law after considering the evidence on file
on merit. Subsequent the order passed by the Revisional Court,
matter was not carried on any further for the accused. Thus,
the issue of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. came to an end in
favour   of   the   appellant.   The   order   of   Chief   Judicial
Magistrate dated 20.06.2009 as well as the Revisional Court
dated   22.07.2011,   does   not   rely   on   Section   195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. for rejecting the Protest Petition of the appellant.
Thus, the submission on the basis of   Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. are not relevant for deciding the present appeal. In
fact submission raised on behalf of the complainant pertaining
to non­applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. has been
accepted by the Courts below as already noted above. Thus, no
benefit can be availed by appellant on the strength of above
submission.
11. The   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate   in   his   order   dated
20.06.2009 as well as the Revisional Court has considered the
material on record and came to the conclusion that no  prima
10
facie  case   is   made   out   against   the   accused   that   he   has
committed   any   forgery   or   played   any   fraud   in   forging   the
document. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has also referred to
the   Report   No.   37/97.       The   Revisional   Court   also   after
considering   all   the   submissions   of   appellant   have   dismissed
the Revision on merits. It is useful to refer to the following
observations of Revisional Court:
“According   to   the   aforesaid   offensive
elements the Revisionist during the course
of   investigation   in   his   statements
recorded   under   Section   161   Cr.   P.C.   has
only   stated   that   Ravi   Setia   in   order   to
play   fraud   prepared   the   letter   by
committing   forgery,   whereas   the   Junior
Accountant Atar Singh in the office of the
Revisionist   has   stated   during   his
statements   dated   19.05.1992   that   the
alleged   letter   dated   10.04.1992   has   not
been dispatched by him, rather it has been
dispatched   by   the   Assistant   Employee
Raghuvir Singh. In this way in the context
of   the   writing   of   said   letter,   it   was
necessary to send the writing of the Class
IV   Employee   Raghuvir   Singh   to   the
Handwriting   Expert   at   FSL.   Further,   the
FSL   in   its   Report   No.   37/97   dated
31.01.1998 has given this conclusion that
the specimen signatures of the Revisionist
and disputed signatures upon matching mark
Q­1 and Q­2 have been stated to be forged
one.   But   in   this   conclusion   it   has   also
been   mentioned   that   it   has   not   been
established as to these signatures are of
whom and these signatures would have made
by   Ravi   Setia.   In   this   way   letter   the
letter   dated   10.04.1992   would   have
prepared   by   the   Respondent   No.   2   in   a
forged manner, at this stage, it has not
become clear in any manner. Therefore, at
11
this stage, there is  no ground available
for   taking   cognizance   against   the
Respondent   No.   2   under   Section   467,   468
and 471 I.P.C.”

12. The   above   order   of   the   Revisional   Court   was   challenged
before   the   High   Court   and   High   Court   also   came   to   the
conclusion that no evidence is available on record to suggest
that letter dated 10.04.1992 was prepared by Respondent No. 2.
The High Court held that no illegality can be found in the
order   of   Revisional   Court.   Although,   the   Final   Report   was
submitted   as   noted   above   on   the   ground   relying   on   Section
195(1)(b)(ii)   Cr.P.C.   but   before   submitting   the   report
investigation was conducted by the Inspector, Police Station
Kotwali and the materials collected during the investigation
were all referred to in the Final Report.   Holding that the
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the present
case, the Revisional Court vide its judgment dated 21.07.2003
has directed the court below to pass an order in accordance
with law on the basis of evidence available.  Hence, the Chief
Judicial   Magistrate   looked   into   the   material   on   record   and
came to conclusion that there are no sufficient material for
taking cognizance against the accused. 

13. High Court also took the same view, in which we do not
find any infirmity. In view of the forgoing discussion, we do
12
not find any merit in this appeal.  The appeal is dismissed,
accordingly.
..........................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
..........................J.
NEW DELHI,     ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
NOVEMBER 03, 2017.