Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India decided a civil appeal by special leave against an order of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed a revision challenging a direction to file a criminal complaint under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Jairam and three others against Babu Lal in the Court of the Munsiff, Koil, District Aligarh, for possession of a strip of land, removal of a wall and slab, and injunction. Babu Lal, examined as a witness, tendered in evidence an agreement dated 25 July 1917, purportedly executed by Mohini, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, to show that the sale deed in her favour was without consideration and that she had only a life interest. The Munsiff found the agreement to be forged and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Before the suit was disposed of, the plaintiffs had applied for action against Babu Lal under Section 479A CrPC, alleging offences under Sections 193, 209, 463 and 471 IPC. The Munsiff did not dispose of that application in his judgment, nor did he record an opinion that it was expedient to prosecute Babu Lal for giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence. After the suit was decided, the plaintiffs moved the Munsiff on their pending application. The Munsiff held that action for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence was barred by Section 479A CrPC because no finding had been recorded at the time of judgment, but he directed that a complaint be filed against Babu Lal for offences under Sections 463 and 471 IPC, using the powers under Section 476 CrPC. This order was confirmed by the District Judge and the High Court dismissed a revision. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 479A CrPC. It held that Section 479A is a special procedure prescribed only for prosecution of a witness for the act of giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding or for fabrication of false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. Section 479A(6) bars proceedings under Sections 476 to 479 only for giving or fabricating false evidence if proceedings may be taken under Section 479A. An offence punishable under Section 471 IPC, which consists of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine a document known or believed to be forged, does not fall within the category contemplated by Section 479A(1). Therefore, the court's authority to act under Section 476 CrPC was not impaired. The Supreme Court referred to Raghubar Prasad Dudhwalla v. Chamanlal Mehra and Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the order directing complaint under Section 476 CrPC for the offence under Section 471 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Prosecution for False Evidence and Fabrication - Interpretation of Section 479A CrPC - The special procedure under Section 479A applies only to a witness who has intentionally given false evidence or intentionally fabricated false evidence for use in a judicial proceeding; it does not bar proceedings under Section 476 for other offences such as using a forged document under Section 471 IPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 476, 479A - The trial court found that the appellant tendered an agreement which it held to be forged, but did not record an opinion under Section 479A at the time of judgment. The Supreme Court held that because an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC is not within the category contemplated by Section 479A(1), the authority of the court to act under Section 476 CrPC was not impaired by Section 479A(6). Held that a complaint under Section 476 CrPC for an offence under Section 471 IPC was maintainable. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Criminal Procedure - Effect of Omission to Record Finding at Judgment - Requirement under Section 479A(1) CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 479A(1) - The Munsiff did not dispose of the plaintiffs' application under Section 479A by his judgment and did not record the required opinion for prosecuting the appellant for false evidence; after disposal of the suit, he could not make a complaint for giving or fabricating false evidence. However, this restriction did not preclude a complaint under Section 476 CrPC for the distinct offence of using a forged document under Section 471 IPC. Held that the order directing complaint under Section 476 CrPC was valid. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, excludes the jurisdiction of a court to proceed under Section 476 of the Code for an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code (using forged document); whether a complaint under Section 476 CrPC could be made after disposal of suit when no finding under Section 479A was recorded at the time of judgment
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that Section 479A CrPC does not bar proceedings under Section 476 CrPC for offence under Section 471 IPC, as s.479A is limited to prosecution of witnesses for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence. The order directing complaint under Section 476 CrPC was upheld.
Law Points
- Section 479A CrPC is a special procedure limited to prosecution of a witness for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence
- Section 479A(6) bars proceedings under Sections 476 to 479 CrPC only for giving or fabricating false evidence if proceedings may be taken under Section 479A
- Section 479A does not bar a complaint under Section 476 CrPC for an offence under Section 471 IPC of using a forged document
- offence under Section 471 IPC is not within the category contemplated by Section 479A(1)
- court's authority under Section 476 CrPC remains unimpaired for such offence
- trial court could direct complaint under Section 476 CrPC after disposal of suit where no Section 479A finding was recorded
