http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/05/1984

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, A. (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1108            1984 SCR  (3) 738  1984 SCC  (3)  92        1984 SCALE  (1)707

ACT:      Code of Criminal Procedure-S. 195(1)(b)(ii)-Scope of

HEADNOTE:      The respondents  in the  appeal and  the petitioners in the special  leave petitions  were the same persons and were employees of  the Allahabad  High Court.  They were found to have removed  some used  court fee stamps from old files and re-used then in new cases. The Registrar with the permission of the  Chief Justice  of the High Court reported the matter to the  Police. The  Police  after  investigation  submitted before the  trial court  three  charge-sheets  for  offences under  ss.  262,  263,  467  471  and  120B,  I.P.C.  In  an application  filed   by  the  respondent  for  quashing  the proceedings, the High Court held that so far as the offences under ss.  467, 471  and 120B, I.P.C. were concerned as they fell within  the  ambit  of  section  195(1)(b)(ii)  of  the Criminal Procedure no cognizance could be taken by the trial court  without  a  complaint  being  filed,  but  for  other offences the  proceedings would  continue. Hence these cross appeals and special leave petitions.      Dismissing the appeals and the petitions, ^      HELD: The law is now well settled that where an accused commits some  offences which  are separate and distinct from those contained in s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, s. 195  will affect  only the  offences mentioned  there  in unless such  offences form  an integral part so as to amount to offences  committed as a part of the same transaction, in which case  the other  offences also  would fall  within the ambit of s. 195 of the Code. [741D]      In the  instant case,  on the  facts  narrated  by  the Registrar in his complaint no offence under ss. 467, 471 and 120B, I.P.C.  is at  all revealed.  At the most the offences against the  accused would fall within the ambit of sections 262, 263,  380 and  420,  I.P.G.  which  do  not  require  a complaint under s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such it  is not necessary to go into the question as to what offences are  connected with ss. 467, 471 and 120B and which are severable  from them. The High Court was fully justified in quashing  the proceedings  against the  accused as far as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

offences under-ss  467, 471  and 120B I.P.C. were concerned, not because  they were  covered by  s. 195  of the  Code but because allegations  contained  in  the  complaint  did  not constitute these  offences. The High Court was further fully justified in  directing that  other offences mentioned above did not  require a  complaint under s. 195 and would have to be tried. [741E-G] 739

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 461-466 of 1980.      From  the   Judgment  &  order  dated  9.11.78  of  the Allahabad High  Court in  Criminal  Misc.  Application  Nos. 1655, 1656, 1657, 1691 and 1698 of 1979.                             AND      Special Leave Petition Nos. 903-908 of 1984      Dalveer Bhandari & H.M. Singh for the appellant.      P. Govindan Nair and Pramod Swarup for the respondent.      Pramod Swarup for the petitioner in SLP Nos. 903-908 of 1984.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI,  J. These appeals by special leave arise out of a  judgment dated  January 9,  1979 of the Allahabad High Court refusing  to quash  the proceedings in toto which were pending before  the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, in exercise of the powers under s. 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  (hereinafter  to  be  referred  to  as  the ’Code’). The  High Court,  however, quashed  the proceedings only in  respect of  offences under ss. 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian  Penal  Code  and  directed  prosecution  of  the respondents  in   respect  of   other  offences  to  proceed according to  law. In order to understand the implication of the judgment  of the  High Court,  it may  be  necessary  to narrate a few facts      It appears  that some time in the year 1967 Shankar Lal Bhargava, who  was officiating  as  Stamp  Reporter  in  the Registry of the Allahabad High Court, with the aid of Suresh Chandra Srivastava  and Bishan  Swarup, who  were clerks  of Advocates, removed  used stamps and out of them reused three court-fee stamps of the value of Rs. 100 each in First Civil Appeal Nos.  281/67, 282/67  and 257/67. When the matter was detected, an enquiry was ordered and the Judicial Department of the  High Court  reported to the Registrar that court-fee stamps of  the value of Rs. 23,007.50 p. (on 15 sheets) were missing from  the judicial  file of  First Appeal No. 186 of 1960. The  enquiry further  revealed that  in several  other cases also  court-fee stamps  had been  taken out  from  the original files and reused in new cases. The Registrar of the High  Court   suspected  that   a  well-organised   gang  of racketeers was  operating in  the High  Court to defraud the Government by surreptitiously 740 removing the  used stamps  from the  judicial files  and re- using them  in new cases. The Registrar, with the permission of the  Chief Justice of the High Court, reported the matter to the  Inspector General  of Police,  U.P., who ordered the Criminal Investigation  Department of  U.P.  to  investigate into the  matter and  ultimately  three  charge-sheets  were submitted for  offences under.  ss. 262,  263, 467, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.      The respondents  filed an  application before  the High Court contending  that as  offences under  ss. 467,  471 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

120B, I.P.C.  fell within  the purview of s.194 of the Code, no prosecution could be launched without the procedure, laid down in  s. 195,  followed. It  is  Common  ground  that  no complaint as  required by the mandatory provisions of s. 195 of the  Code having been made, the proceedings. could not be proceeded. The  High Court  held that  so far as the offence under ss.  467, 471  and 120B, I.P.C. were concealed as they fell within  the ambit  of s.  165((1)b)(ii) of the Code, no cognizance could  be  taken  by  the  Magistrate  without  a complaint being  filed. The relevant portion of s. 195(1)(b) may be extracted thus:           "195.(1) No Court shall take cognizance-           xx             xx             xx           (b)(ii) of  any offence  described in section 463,      or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section      476, of  the said Code, when such offence is alleged to      have been  committed in  respect of a document produced      or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or           (iii) of  any criminal  conspiracy to  commit,  or      attempt to  commit, or  the abetment  of,  any  offence      specified in sub clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),      except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of      some other Court to which that Court is subordinate."      On the facts mentioned above, it is clear to us that in the complaint sent by the Registrar to the Inspector General of Police,  offences mentioned  were offences under ss. 262, 263, 467,  380, 420,  and 471  but from  a  perusal  of  the recitals in  the original  Memorandum which formed the basis of the complaint it seems to us that the only offences which have made  out would be offences Under ss. 262, 263, 380 and 420 which are obviously not covered by s. 195 of the Code. 741      The High  Court held  that the  offences under ss. 467, 471 and  120B, l.P.C.  even if  made out  could not be taken cognizance of  by the  trial court without a complaint under s. 195  of the Code. A perusal of the facts shows that there is not  even a  hint regarding forging any document or using a. forged  document. Taking the complaint at its face value, at the  most the cases against the accused would fall within the ambit  of ss. 262, 263, 380 and 420, I.P.C. which do not require a complaint under s. 195. The fact that some persons aided and  abetted the detaching of the used stamps from the old files  and re-using  them in  the other  cases does  not involve any process of forgery or use of a forged document.      In these  circumstances, therefore, it is not necessary for us  to go  into the  broader question  as to  whether if offences under  ss. 467, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. are committed, the complaint  could proceed  or not.  The law  is now well- settled that  where an  accused commits  some offences which are separate  and distinct  from those  contained in s. 195, and section  195 will  affect only  the  offences  mentioned therein unless  such offences form an integral part so as to amount  to   offences  committed  as  a  part  of  the  same transaction, in  which case  the other  offences also  would fall within the ambit of s. 195 of the Code.      In the  instant case,  as already pointed out by us, on the facts  narrated by  the Registrar  in his  complaint  no offence under  ss. 467,  471 and  120B,  I.P.C.  is  at  all revealed and  as such  it is  not necessary  to go  into the question as to what offences are connected with ss. 467, 471 and 120B  and which  are severable from them. The High Court was fully  justified in quashing the proceedings against the accused as  far as  offences under  ss. 467,  471 and  120B, I.P.C. were  concerned, not  because they were covered by s. 195 of  the Code  but because  allegations contained  in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

complaint did  not constitute these offences. The High Court was further fully justified in directing that other offences mentioned above did not require a complaint under s. 195 and would have to be tried.      In the  view that we take it is not necessary for us to decide the  broader question of law posed by the High Court, i.e., whether  or not  offences under ss. 467, 471 and 120B, I.P alongwith  other offences, were covered by s. 195 of the Code. 742      We, therefore,  affirm the  Judgment of  the High Court and dismiss  the appeals and the special leave petitions and direct that  cases  under  sections  262,  263,  380/34  and 420/34, Indian  Penal Code  be tried  without any  complaint under section 195 of the Code. H.S.K.    Appeals & Petitions dismissed. 743