http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: S. L. GOSWAMI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/11/1978

BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. DESAI, D.A. KOSHAL, A.D.

CITATION:  1979 AIR  437            1979 SCR  (2) 385  1979 SCC  (3) 373  CITATOR INFO :  R          1983 SC1053  (6)

ACT:      Cognizance of  an offence under section 466 I.P.C. with section 120-B,  without the sanction of the Government under section 196-A(2)  of the  Criminal Procedure  Code.  whether valid.      Criminal Procedure  Code 1973  Section  195(1)(c)-Scope of-Whether the  section covers  an offence under section 466 I.P.C.

HEADNOTE:      On a  complaint by  the  Additional  Registrar  of  the Madhya Pradesh  High Court  alleging that,  while the  Paper Book in  the Supreme  Court appeal  was being  prepared, the appellant  entered,  into  a  conspiracy  with  two  of  the translators of  the Court  and tampered with the of original deposition of  one Dr.  S. C.  Barat (D.W.  1) in an earlier criminal case  against the  appellant which was under appeal in the  Supreme Court for which the aforesaid paper book was being prepared,  the First  Class Magistrate  committed  the appellant and two others to the Sessions Court to take their trial for offences under section 466 read with section 120-B of the  Penal Code.  The appellant  and another  preferred a revision petition  before the  High Court  against the  said order of  committal. The  High Court  dismissed the revision petition.      Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court ^ HELD :      1. An  offence under  section 466  I.P.C is  covered by clause (c)  of section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and comes within the purview of that section, as the offence under section  463 I.P.C. is dealt within section 466 I.P.C. Section 466  I.P.C. is on aggravated form of forgery in that the forgery  should relate  to a  document specified in that section. Section  466 I.P.C.,  is therefore  an  offence  as described in  section  463  I.P.C.  which  is  committed  in relation to  a record  or proceeding  of or  in a  court  of justice. [390F, H, 391 A-B]      The offences  that fall  within the  purview of section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

195(1)(c) Criminal  P C.  are offences  described in section 463 I.P.C. and offences punishable under section 471, 475 or 476 of the Penal Code. The language of section 195(1) (c) of the Crl.  P.C. is  very significant  for while  referring to sections 471, 475 or 476 I.P.C., it uses the word punishable in the  case of  section  463  I.P.C.  the  words  are  ’the offences described in section 463’. An offence under section 466 I.P.C.  is an offence which falls within the description of section  463 I.P.C.,  as the  offence under  section  463 I.P.C. is dealt with therein. [391B-D]      Section 195(1)(a)  of the  Criminal Procedure Code uses the words  "of any  offences punishable under section 172.." while in clause (b), the words used are "offences punishable under any  of the  following sections mentioned therein". In clause (e)  the words  are  "of  any  offence  described  in section 463  or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476  of the  same code". Thus a clear distinction is maintained in the section between offences 386 punishable under  various sections mentioned and the offence described in  section 463.  Even on  the test  laid down  in Govind Mehta  v. State  of Bihar  [1971] Suppl.  S.C.R. 777, section 466  I.P.C. would  be included within the purview of section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. [391D-E]      Govind Mehta  v. State  of Bihar [1971] Suppl. SCR 777;      explained and over ruled.      2. The  requirement; of  section 195 (1)(c) is that the document in question should be produced or given in evidence in the  proceeding before  the Court.  The offence committed must in  some manner  have affected  the proceedings  or had been designed  to affect them or come to light in the course of them,  but an offence committed after their conclusion is wholly outside the scope of the provision. [392F-H, 393A]      Legal Remembrancer of Govt. Of West Bengal v. Hari Das.      Mundra [1976] 2 SCR 933, applied.      Pendyala Suhbarayudu  v. Gudivada  Gopayya A.I.R.  1932      Madras 290; approved.      Nirmal Jit  Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal and Anr.      [1973] 2  SCR 66  and Abdul  Khadar and  ors. v.  Meera      Saheb I.L.R. 15 Mad. 224; referred to.      3. In  the instant  case (a)  section  196A(2)  of  the Criminal Procedure  Code is attracted and a complaint by the State  Government   or  the   Chief  Presidency   Magistrate empowered in  this behalf by the State Government in writing consenting to  the initiation  of  the  proceedings  for  an offence under section 120 l.P.C. is necessary. [393B]      (b) The  requirement of  section 195(1)(c)  having  not been satisfied  a complaint  by the  Court in writing is not necessary. [393A]      (c)  Equally  under  sub-section  (4)  to  section  195 relating to  criminal conspiracy  to commit  such offence  a complaint by the Court is not necessary. [393A]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 144 of 1972.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated 1-2-1972  of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 709/71.      R. Nagarathnam for the Appellant.      S. K. Gambhir, Miss B. Ramrakhiani and J. M. Khanna for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    KAILASAM, J.  This appeal  is preferred  by Dr.  S.  L. Goswami by  special leave  granted by this Court against the judgment of  the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 709 of 1971. Criminal Revision No. 709 of 1971 was filed by the appellant 387 before  the  High  Court  for  quashing  the  order  of  the Magistrate, 1st  , Class,  Jabalpur committing the appellant to Sessions  for trial  under section  466 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.      The appellant  was prosecuted before the Special Judge, Jabalpur, in  Criminal Case  No. S  of 1967  for an  offence under section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, in  connection with  the  defalcations  of  Government funds. In  that case  one Dr.  S. C. Barat was examined as a defence witness.  The appellant  was convicted and an appeal against his  conviction before  the High  Court failed.  The appellant obtained  special leave  from this Court to appeal against the  order of the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal  before the  Supreme Court  the  High  Court  was required to  prepare a  paper book  for use  in the  Supreme Court. It  is alleged  that when  the paper  book was  being prepared in  the Supreme Court section of the High Court the appellant Dr.  Goswami entered into a conspiracy with two of the translators and tampered with the original deposition of Dr. S.  C. Barat,  D.W. 1.  The Additional  Registrar of the High  Court   field  a  complaint  before  the  First  Class Magistrate, Jabalpur,  against the  appellant for an offence under section  466 read  with section  120-B of  the  Indian Penal Code.  The case was taken on file by the Magistrate as Criminal Case  No. 1924 of 1971. Against the two persons who were  alleged  to  have  conspired  with  the  appellant  in tampering with  the deposition  of Dr.  Barat a  challan was filed by  the police before the same First Class Magistrate. The Magistrate  by a  common order  on 15th  November,  1971 committed the  appellant  as  well  as  two  others  to  the Sessions Court  to  take  their  trial  for  offences  under section 466  read with  section 120-B  of the  Indian  Penal Code. The  appellant  and  another  with  whom  we  are  not concerned preferred a revision petition against the order of his  committal   before  the  High  Court.  The  High  Court dismissed the  Fr revision  filed by the appellant and hence this appeal.      The main  contentions that  are raised  in this  appeal are: (i)   The  Magistrate erred  in taking cognizance of an offence under section 466 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 120-B,  Indian Penal  Code. without  sanction of the Government under section 196-A (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; and  (2) the offence, if any, was not committed in any court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such  proceeding as  required under section 195(i) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.      We will  take up  the first  contention  urged  by  the learned counsel  for 11 the appellant, namely that the trial court was  in error  in taking  cognizance  of  the  offence without a complaint by the State Government when the 388 offence charged  is one of conspiracy under section 120-B of the Indian  Penal Code as required under section 196-A(2) of the Criminal  Procedure  Code.  Section  196-A(2)  reads  as follows:-           "196-A. No  court shall  take  cognizance  of  the      offence!  of   criminal  conspiracy   punishable  under      section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.           (1) * * * *

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

         (2) in  a case  where the object of the conspiracy      is  to   commit  any   non-cognizable  offence,   or  a      cognizable   offence   not   punishable   with   death,      imprisonment for  life or  rigorous imprisonment  for a      term  of   two  years   or  upwards  unless  the  State      Government,  or   a  Chief   Presidency  Magistrate  or      District Magistrate  empowered in  this behalf  by  the      State Government  had by  order in writing consented to      the initiation of the proceedings;           Provided that where the Criminal Conspiracy is one      to which  the provisions  of sub-section (4) of section      195 apply no such consent shall be necessary."      Section 466 deals with a non-cognizable offence and the sub-clause (2)  to section  196A  provides  that  where  the object of  the conspiracy  is  to  commit  a  non-cognizable offence an  order in writing consenting to the initiation of proceedings is  necessary by  the State  Government  or  the Chief  Presidency  Magistrate  or  the  District  Magistrate empowered in  this behalf  by the  State Government. No such consent in  writing was  obtained in this case. An exception to this requirement is Made by the Proviso which states that if the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of sub-section (4)  of section  195 apply no such consent shall be necessary.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  determine whether the  offence complained  of is  one that falls under section 195(4)  in which  case consent for initiation of the proceedings is not necessary.      Section  195(1)   (c)  and  section  195(4)  which  are necessary for the discussion may be extracted.      "195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance-           (a) *          *         *         *           (b) *          *         *         *           (c)  of any  offence described  in Section  463 or                punishable under  Section 471, Section 475 or                Section 476  of  the  same  Code,  when  such                offence is alleged to have been 389                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 Court  to which  such Court is                subordinate.           (2)  *          *             *              *           (3)  *          *             *              *           (4)  The   provisions  of  sub-section  (1),  with                reference  to  the  offences  named  therein,                apply also to criminal conspiracies to commit                such offences  and to  the abetment  of  such                offences, and attempts to commit.           (5)  *          *             *              * Sub-section (4) makes the provisions of sub-section (1) with reference to  the  offences  named  applicable  to  criminal conspiracy to  commit such  offences also.  If  the  offence falls under  provisions of  subsection (1)  to   Section 195 then criminal  conspiracy to commit such offences would also fall under  section 195(1)  and  require  the  complaint  in writing by  the  court  before  the  offence  can  be  taken cognizance of. The requirements of section 195(1)(C) are:           (1)   The offence  must be  one  as  described  in                section 463 or punishable under sections 471,                475 or 476 of the I.P.C.           (2)   Such offences Should be alleged to have been                committed by a party to any proceeding in any                court;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

         (3)   Such offence  should  be  in  respect  of  a                document produced  or given  in  evidence  in                such proceeding. The offence for which the appellant is committed to take his trial is  that there  was consent  of the  appellant also in committing the  conspiracy for  committing  forgery  of  the record by  tampering the  evidence of  Dr. Barat  while  the records were being prepared by the High Court for being sent to the  Supreme Court  for use  in the appeal pending before the Supreme Court.      The first requirement is that the offence should be one as described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, section 475  or section 476 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that as section 466, Indian Penal Code, is not one of the  sections mentioned,  the offence will not fall under the provisions of section 195(1) (c) 390 and the  section will  not apply.  In support of this view a decision of  his Court in Govind Mehta v. State of Bihar(1), was relied  on. In that case, on a complaint by the District Public  Prosecutor  the  appellant  before  this  Court  was committed to  the Sessions to take trial under sections 167, 466 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the contentions raised before  this Court was that the offence under section 466, Indian  Penal Code,  is not  covered by clauses (b) and (c) of  section 195(1)  and therefore  section 195  does not operate as  a bar  to taking  cognizance of an offence under section 466,  Indian Penal  Code. this  Court after agreeing with the  view of  the High Court that section 195(1) (b) or (c) is  no bar  to the  Magistrate taking  cognizance for an offence under  section  167  observed:  "The  offence  under section 466 of the Penal Code is, admittedly, not covered by clause (b)  or clause  (c) of  section 195(1)  of the  Code. therefore, that section does not operate as a bar in respect of this  office." Again  at  p.  785  this  Court  observed: "Section 463  of the  Penal Code  is, no  doubt, taken in by Clause (c)  of Section 195(1) of the Code. Even on the basis that Section  465 of  the Penal Code will also be covered by Clause (c)  as the  offence, under Section 463 is dealt with therein, nevertheless,  Clause (c) will not operate as a bar to the  jurisdiction of  the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the  said offence  is not  alleged to have been committed ’by a  party to any  proceeding in any court..’ We have also referred to  the fact that the  appellant has been committed only for  the offence under Sections 167, 466 and 471 of the Penal Code. Section 465 of the Penal Code is not the subject of  the   committal  order."   We  have  given  our  careful consideration to  the view  expressed in  the above decision that section  466 of the Indian Penal Code is not covered by clause (c) of section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. We regret  our inability to subscribe to this view. At p.785 of the  Report the  Court took the view that the section 465 of the  Indian Penal  Code is  not specifically mentioned in section 195(1)  (c) of  the Criminal  Procedure Code  as the offence under section 463 Indian Penal Code is dealt with in section 465, Indian Penal Code, clause (c) of section 195(1) will  not   operate  as  a  bar  to  the  Magistrate  taking cognizance the offence. The Court, though section 465 is not specifically mentioned  in section  ;195(1) (c),  held  that section 195(1) (c) Is applicable as an offence under section 463 is  dealt with  under section 465, Indian Penal Code. On the same  reasoning section  466 should also be held to come within the  purview of section 195(1)(c), Criminal Procedure Code, as  the offence  under section  463 is  dealt with  in section  466.   Section  463,  Indian  Penal  Code,  defines

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

forgery. The elements of      (1) [1971] Supp. S.C.R. 777. 391 forgery are:  (1) The  making of a false document or part of it; (2)  Such making  should be  with such  intention as  is specified in  the section.  Section 464 states when a person is said  to make  a false  document  which  is  one  of  the requirements under  section 463.  Section 465  provides  the punishment for  an offence under section 463. Section 466 is an aggravated  form of  forgery in  that the  forgery should relate to  a document  specified in  the section. One of the documents specified  is a document purporting to be a record or proceeding  of or  in a  Court of  Justice. Section  466, Indian Penal  Code, is  therefore an offence as described in section 463  which is  committed in  relation to a record or proceeding of  or in  a court  of justice. The offences that fall within  the purview  of section  195(1)(c) are offences described in  section  463  and  offences  punishable  under sections 471,  475 or  476 of  the Indian  Penal  Code.  The language of  section 195(1)(c) is very significant for while referring to sections 474, 475 or 476, Indian Penal Code, it uses the  word publishable,  in the  case of section 463 the words used  are the  ’offences described in section 463’. An offence under  section 466  is an offence which falls within the description  of section 463 as the offence under section 463 is dealt with therein. Section 195(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code  uses the  words "of  any offence  punishable under section  172" while  in clause  (b) the words used are "offence punishable  under any  of the  following  sections" mentioned therein.  In clause (c) as already pointed out the words used  are "of  any offence described in section 463 or punishable under  section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the same  Code". Thus  a clear  distinction is maintained in the  section   between  offences  punishable  under  various sections mentioned  and the  offences described  in  section 463. Even  on the  test laid  down by  this Court  in Govind Mehta v.  State  of  Bihar  (supra)  section  466  would  be included within  the purview  of section 195(1) (c). We are, therefore, of the view that the decision that section 466 of the Indian Penal Code is not covered by clause (b) or clause (c) of  section 195(1)  is erroneous  and not  good law. The question of  law was  not considered  and the  decision  was reached on an admission made by the parties.      We will now deal with the other requirements of section 195 (1)  (c) namely  that The  offence should  be alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding and that it should be  in respect  cf a  document produced  or given  in evidence  in  such  proceeding.  It  is  admitted  that  the appellant was  a party  in  the  appeal  that  he  preferred against his  conviction before the High Court but the appeal was  decided  against  him  and  the  conviction  confirmed. Special leave  was granted  against his  conviction and  for hearing of the appeal before the 392 Supreme Court  the paper book was being prepared by the High Court. It  was during  that time that it is alleged that the appellant entered  into a  conspiracy and  tampered with the evidence of  one of  the defence witnesses which is a record of the  court. The  appellant was a party to a proceeding in the High  Court when  the appeal  was heard but the document complained of as having been tampered with i.e. the evidence of the  defence  witness,  was  not  produced  or  giver  in evidence in  the appeal  before the High Court. The document was certainly  not produced or given in evidence in the High Court proceedings.  The  alleged  tampering  was  after  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

hearing of the appeal was concluded. No doubt, the tampering was in  a proceeding  in relation  to the preparation of the record whether  such tampering  would be  in relation  to  a proceeding  in  Supreme  Court  in  respect  of  a  document produced or  given in  evidence before it does not arise for consideration before  us as  the complaint  in the  case  is filed only  by the  High Court.  In Abdul Khader and ors. v. Meera Saheb(1)  a Bench  of the  Madras High Court held that where a  decree against  Certain defendants  had been passed upon the  oath of  the plaintiffs  and where  ’the documents alleged to  be forgeries  have been  put into Court but were not given  in evidence  it would not be an offence committed by a  party lo  any proceeding  in any court in respect of a document given  in evidence  in such  proceeding though  the documents were  put in court in a suit pending before it but were not  given in  evidence  Subsequent  to  this  decision section 195(1)(c)  was amended  so as  to include  documents "produced" in  addition to  documents given  in evidence. In Pendyala Subbarayudu  v. (Gudivada)  Gopayya(2) if  was held that it was indispensable that the offence committed must in some manner  have  affected  the  proceedings  or  had  been designed to  effect them  or come  to light in the course of them but  an offence  committed after  their close is wholly outside the  scope of  the provision. We agree with the view expressed in  the decision.  In Nirmaljit  Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.(3) it was held that a document produced  in  a  proceeding  before  the  court  during  the investigation by  the police ordered under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code would not be a document produced ill a  proceeding before  the court so as to attract the ban under section  195(1) (c)  of the  Criminal Procedure  Code. This Court  in a  recent decision  in Legal  Remembrancer of Government of West Bengal v. Haridas Mundra(4) held that the requirement of  section 195(1)  (c) is  that the document in question should be produced or given in evidence in the      (1) I.L.R. 15 M d. 224.      (2) A.l.R. 1932 Mad. 290.      (3) [1973] 2 S.C.R. 66.      (4) [1976] 2 S.C.R. 933. 393 proceeding before  the court.  We find  on the  facts of the case that  it has not been established that the document was produced or  given in  evidence in  a proceeding  before the court. The requirements of section 195(1)(c) having not been satisfied a  complaint  by  the  court  in  writing  is  not necessary. Equally,  under sub-section  (4) to  section  195 relating to  criminal conspiracy  to commit  such offence  a complaint by  the court is not necessary. Therefore, section 196-A(2)  is   attracted  and   a  complaint  by  the  State Government or  the Chief Presidency Magistrate or a District Magistrate compowered in this behalf by the State Government in writing  consenting to  the initiation of the proceedings for an  offence under  section 120-B,  Indian Penal  Code is necessary. As  in this  case no such order consenting to the initiation  of   proceedings  was   passed  we   accept  the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Magistrate had  no jurisdiction  to take  cognizance of  the offence against  the appellant.  In the result, we allow the appeal, reverse the judgment of the High Court and quash the order of  committal passed  by the  Magistrate. First Class, Jabalpur. S.R.                                         Appeal allowed. 7-978SCD/ 78 394

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8