Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Magistrate in Forgery Prosecution Under Sections 167, 466, 471 IPC. Bar Under Section 195(1)(c) CrPC Inapplicable as Magistrate Was Not Party to Transfer Proceedings and Section 476 CrPC Not Attracted.

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a prosecution of a judicial officer for forgery and related offences. In 1963, the appellant was posted as Magistrate, First Class, at Patna with special powers to try Bad Livelihood Cases under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Two such cases, Nos. 4 and 5 of 1963, against Kailash Gope and Ramprit Gope and others were transferred to his file. The accused persons in those cases had been enlarged on bail, but the appellant noticed defects in the bail bonds, directed rectification, and upon failure, cancelled the bail bonds and remanded them to custody. The accused persons filed transfer applications before the District Magistrate, Patna, alleging apprehension of injustice. After learning of those applications, the appellant recorded two orders on the order sheets of the two cases making serious allegations against the District Magistrate, alleging interference with justice. The prosecution alleged that the appellant inserted these orders long after the last orders were passed, to make it appear that the remarks were made earlier. The District Magistrate called for a report, and on receiving the records, transferred the transfer applications to the Additional District Magistrate, who after hearing the parties transferred the cases away from the appellant and sent a report for initiation of forgery proceedings. The report was forwarded to the State Government, which sanctioned prosecution. The Senior District Prosecutor filed a complaint on 21 December 1964 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar, alleging offences under Sections 16, 465, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance and transferred the case to a Magistrate, First Class, who after examining witnesses and documents committed the appellant to the Court of Sessions for trial under Sections 167, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges under those sections. The appellant filed applications contending that the mandatory provisions of Sections 195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 had not been complied with, and sought acquittal. The Assistant Sessions Judge rejected those applications on 22 November 1966. The appellant then filed criminal revisions before the Sessions Judge, seeking quashing of the commitment orders and a reference to the High Court. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revisions. The High Court dismissed Criminal Revision Nos. 345 and 346 of 1968 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 248 and 249 of 1968 by a common order dated 16 December 1968. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issues were whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b) or (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied to the cognizance of the offences under Sections 167, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code when the complaint was filed by the District Prosecutor rather than by the court, and whether Section 476 of the Code was mandatorily required and had been violated. The appellant argued that the authority to file the complaint was the court to which he was subordinate under Section 195(1)(b) and (c), and that the complaint by the District Prosecutor was invalid; he also contended that the Additional District Magistrate should have filed the complaint under Section 476. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's analysis that the charge under Section 167 was justified and not a device to evade Section 195(1)(b). The Court held that the offence under Section 466 is not covered by clauses (b) or (c) of Section 195(1), and therefore no bar applied. As to Section 471, the Court noted that although Section 471 falls under Section 195(1)(c), the bar applies only when the offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court. The appellant was merely functioning as a Magistrate and had no personal interest in the outcome of the transfer applications; therefore he was not a party to those proceedings. Consequently, Section 195(1)(c) did not bar cognizance. Since Section 195 did not apply, Section 476 was not attracted; further, the order of the Additional District Magistrate only transferred the cases and recorded reasons, without taking action under Section 476. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's order, directing that the appellant should stand trial for offences under Sections 167, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed; the common order of Patna High Court dated 16 December 1968 dismissing Criminal Revision Nos. 345 and 346 of 1968 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 248 and 249 of 1968 was affirmed. The appellant was to stand trial for offences under Sections 167, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Law Points