Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC in Forgery Cases: Vishnu Chandru Gaonkar vs. N.M. Dessai (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 6 March 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 188

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can a criminal complaint be filed against a lawyer for allegedly forging a document that was later submitted in court, even if the forgery happened before the court proceedings? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent judgment. This case revolves around the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the procedure for prosecuting offences related to documents produced in court. The core issue was whether the bar under this section applies when the forgery occurred before the document was submitted to the court.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, delivered the judgment, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a civil suit (No. 4 of 1993) filed by Laximan Rama Gaonkar and Janu Narayan Gaonkar against Kusta Naga Gaonkar and Suresh Kust Gaonkar. The suit was decreed on 7 December 2001. Following this, the legal heirs of the plaintiffs filed an execution application on 7 December 2003. The legal heirs of the defendants then filed a Civil Appeal (No. 91 of 2004) against the decree.

During the appeal process, one of the appellants, Shaba Manju Velip, passed away on 2 March 2005. However, no application was made to bring his legal heirs on record. On 20 June 2006, the plaintiffs’ advocate applied to withdraw the execution case. Subsequently, on 18 July 2006, an application was filed to withdraw the Civil Appeal, which was allowed on the same day. The execution case was also allowed to be withdrawn on 21 July 2006.

On 29 November 2007, Vishnu Chandru Gaonkar, the appellant and legal heir of the original plaintiff No. 2, filed an application under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. He alleged that the respondent, N.M. Dessai, who was the counsel for the appellants in the Civil Appeal, had committed an offense by verifying and forging the thumb impression of the deceased Shaba Manju Velip on the application to withdraw the appeal. The District & Sessions Judge directed an inquiry and registration of a complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC on 31 July 2008. The High Court, however, set aside this order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which outlines the conditions for taking cognizance of certain offenses. Specifically, the relevant parts are:

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. – (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(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 by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate].”

Section 195(1)(a) deals with offenses related to contempt of lawful authority of public servants. Section 195(1)(b)(i) pertains to offenses against public justice, such as giving false evidence in court. Section 195(1)(b)(ii), which is central to this case, relates to offenses involving documents produced or given in evidence in court, specifically forgery (Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) and using forged documents as genuine (Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860). The key issue is whether the forgery must occur while the document is in the custody of the court (custodia legis) for Section 195(1)(b)(ii) to apply.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the High Court erred in relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [(1998) 2 SCC 493] and Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. [(2005) 4 SCC 370]. These cases, according to the appellant, dealt with Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, which was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
• The appellant argued that the allegations in his complaint were referable to Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC, which deals with offenses against public justice. He claimed that the District & Sessions Judge had correctly considered the facts and directed the filing of a complaint against the respondent under Section 195(1)(b)(i).
• The appellant submitted that the forgery of the thumb impression on the document to withdraw the appeal was an offense that fell under Section 195(1)(b)(i) because it was related to a court proceeding.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent, N.M. Dessai, did not appear despite service of notice. However, his position, as noted by the High Court and the Supreme Court, was that:

• He was informed that settlement talks were ongoing and the Gaonkars intended to withdraw the execution application.
• He drafted and handed over the application for withdrawing the appeal to Suresh K. Gaonkar to obtain the signatures of the remaining respondents.
• He was not aware of the death of Shaba Manju Velip or the alleged forged thumb impression on the application.

Sub-Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC is applicable to a case where the forgery of a document was committed before the document was produced in court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493 – Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. This case interpreted Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and Section 340(1) of the CrPC. It held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) does not apply when the forgery was committed before the document was produced in court. The court emphasized that the offense should have been committed while the document was in custodia legis.
• Surjit Singh & Ors. vs. Balbir Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 533 – A contrary view was expressed by another Three-Judge Bench, which was not in accord with the view in Sachida Nand Singh. This conflict led to a reference to a Constitution Bench.
• Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370 – Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. This case resolved the conflict between the views in Sachida Nand Singh and Surjit Singh. The Constitution Bench approved the judgment in Sachida Nand Singh, holding that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is attracted only when the offenses are committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a court.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – This section outlines the conditions for taking cognizance of certain offenses, including those related to contempt of lawful authority, offenses against public justice, and offenses relating to documents given in evidence.
• Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Defines forgery.
• Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Deals with using a forged document as genuine.

Authority Consideration Table:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [(1998) 2 SCC 493]* and held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court.
• The Supreme Court overruled the view in Surjit Singh & Ors. vs. Balbir Singh [(1996) 3 SCC 533]* and upheld the view in Sachida Nand Singh.
• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. [(2005) 4 SCC 370]* and held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC is attracted only when the offenses are committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a court.
• The Supreme Court interpreted Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)* to mean that the offense under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) must be committed after the document is produced in court, emphasizing the statutory scheme of the section.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC and the precedents set by its own Constitution Bench. The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme of Section 195 indicates that the offense should have a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice. The Court also noted that the appellant had specifically alleged an offense under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) in his complaint and before the District Judge, thereby limiting the scope of the appeal.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretation and adherence to established precedents. The factual aspects of the case, such as the timing of the forgery and the appellant’s specific allegations, were considered, but the legal principles and precedents weighed more heavily in the final decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the statutory scheme of Section 195, the precedents set by Sachida Nand Singh and Iqbal Singh Marwah, and the specific allegations made by the appellant. The court rejected the argument that the case fell under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and emphasized that the appellant had specifically invoked Section 195(1)(b)(ii). The Court also noted that the withdrawal of the appeal did not impair the appellant’s interest, as the execution application was also withdrawn.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC and the precedents set by its own Constitution Bench. The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme of Section 195 indicates that the offense should have a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice. The Court also noted that the appellant had specifically alleged an offense under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) in his complaint and before the District Judge, thereby limiting the scope of the appeal.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The scheme of the statutory provision may now be examined. Broadly, Section 195 CrPC deals with three distinct categories of offences which have been described in clauses (a), (b)(i) and (b)(ii) and they relate to (1) contempt of lawful authority of public servants, (2) offences against public justice, and (3) offences relating to documents given in evidence.”
• “This indicates that clause (b)(ii) contemplates a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any court.”
• “We thus fully endorse the view of the High Court that present is not a case where any complaint could have been proceeded with under Section 195(1)(b)(ii).”

Key Takeaways

• A complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC cannot be initiated for forgery of a document if the forgery occurred before the document was produced in court.
• The offense must be committed after the document is produced or given in evidence in a court for Section 195(1)(b)(ii) to apply.
• The statutory scheme of Section 195 emphasizes that the offense should have a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice.
• The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal precedents and statutory interpretations.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC applies only when the offenses enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. This judgment reaffirms the position established by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah and clarifies that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) does not apply to cases where the forgery occurred before the document was produced in court. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Court has reiterated and applied the existing law to the facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the District Judge. The Court reiterated that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC applies only when the forgery occurs after the document is produced in court. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal precedents and statutory interpretations, thereby providing clarity on the application of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) in cases of document forgery.