Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a criminal case in which the appellant had appeared as a prosecution witness in a trial under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents, which ended in acquittal on May 10, 1957. On June 28, 1957, an application was made before the Magistrate under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 alleging that the appellant and other prosecution witnesses, including the complainant Mayadas Khanna, had given false evidence, fabricated false evidence, used forged documents as genuine, and abetted these offences. The original Magistrate who had disposed of the criminal case was no longer available, so the Chief Presidency Magistrate transferred the application to Mr. J. M. Bir, who was nominated as successor. Mr. Bir held that Section 479A CrPC was a complete bar against action being taken against the appellant and other witnesses who were merely witnesses on the side of the complainant. He therefore directed a complaint to be lodged only against Mayadas Khanna, the complainant, and rejected the application as against the rest. On appeal by Chamanlal Mehra, the Calcutta High Court held that Section 479A CrPC had no application to the offence of committing forgery or being a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit forgery. The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order in respect of the appellant and directed that a complaint be made against him under Sections 467 and 467/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court, challenging the correctness of the High Court's view that Section 479A did not bar action under Section 476 for such offences. The core legal issue was whether Section 479A CrPC, which provides a special procedure for prosecuting witnesses for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence, excluded proceedings under Section 476 CrPC in respect of other offences such as forgery under Section 467 IPC and conspiracy to commit forgery under Section 467 read with Section 120B IPC. The appellant contended that because he was a witness and the allegations related to false evidence, Section 479A CrPC barred action under Section 476. The respondents argued that Section 479A was limited to perjury and fabrication of false evidence punishable under Section 193 IPC and cognate provisions, and therefore did not bar action for forgery or conspiracy. The Supreme Court examined the text of Section 479A, noting its non obstante clause overriding Sections 476 to 479 inclusive. The Court acknowledged a divergence of judicial opinion on whether action could be taken under Section 476 when action under Section 479A could have been taken but was not, but held that question did not arise. The Court framed the narrower issue as whether Section 476 was barred even for offences of forgery or conspiracy to commit forgery. The Court observed that the special procedure of Section 479A was prescribed only for prosecution of a witness for the act of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence, acts punishable under Section 193 IPC and cognate sections in Chapter XI. Applying the principle that a special provision prevails over a general provision only to the extent of its explicit scope, the Court stated that the scope of the special provision must be strictly construed. If the legislature had intended the special procedure to apply to other offences, it would have used clear words to that effect. The Court found it unreasonable to read into Section 479A the meaning that where a person appeared to have committed an offence under Section 193 IPC by giving or fabricating false evidence and also appeared to have committed some other offence such as forgery for the very purpose of fabricating false evidence, a complaint for such other offence could be made under Section 479A. Therefore, the Court held that Section 479A had no application to prosecution for offences other than those under Section 193 and cognate sections in Chapter XI, and that Sections 476, 477, 478 and 479 CrPC continued to apply for other offences after the enactment of Section 479A. The Court did not examine whether the appellant appeared prima facie to have committed offences under Sections 467 and 467/120B IPC, as that had not been argued. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order directing the filing of a complaint against the appellant under Sections 467 and 467/120B IPC, and expressed no opinion on the merits of the alleged offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Prosecution of Witness for False Evidence - Scope of Special Procedure Under Section 479A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 479A; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 193, 467, 467/120B - Section 479A CrPC is prescribed only for prosecution of a witness for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence, acts punishable under Section 193 IPC and cognate sections in Chapter XI - It does not extend to or bar prosecution for forgery or conspiracy to commit forgery under Sections 467 and 467/120B IPC - Held that Sections 476 to 479 CrPC continue to apply for such other offences even after enactment of Section 479A (Paras 1-4). B) Statutory Interpretation - Special Provision Versus General Provision - Strict Construction of Overlap - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 479A - In applying the principle that a special provision prevails over a general provision, the scope of the special provision must be strictly construed to find out how much of the field covered by the general provision is also covered by the special provision - The legislature would have used clear words if it intended the special procedure to apply to offences other than those under Section 193 IPC and cognate sections - Held that Section 479A cannot be read to cover forgery committed for the purpose of fabricating false evidence, and therefore action under Section 476 is not barred (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applies to prosecution for offences other than those under Section 193 and cognate sections in Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, and whether Sections 476 to 479 CrPC continue to apply for other offences like forgery or conspiracy to commit forgery.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 479A CrPC had no application to prosecution for offences other than those under Section 193 and cognate sections in Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, and that Sections 476, 477, 478 and 479 CrPC continued to apply for other offences such as forgery or conspiracy to commit forgery. The Court expressed no opinion on whether the appellant appeared prima facie to have committed offences under Sections 467 and 467/120B IPC.
Law Points
- Section 479A CrPC is a special procedure confined to offences under Section 193 IPC and cognate sections in Chapter XI
- it does not bar action under Section 476 CrPC for other offences such as forgery or conspiracy to commit forgery
- special provisions must be strictly construed to determine overlap with general provisions
- Sections 476 to 479 CrPC continue to apply for offences other than perjury or fabrication of false evidence even after enactment of Section 479A
