Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Appasaheb Baburao Shinde, was the original accused No.4 in a complaint filed by respondent No.2, Sachin Mahadeo Vaidya, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed. The respondent alleged that during a departmental enquiry conducted by the Maharashtra State Bharat Scouts and Guides, the petitioner and other officers made false statements, thereby committing an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, recorded verification under Section 200 CrPC, directed investigation under Section 202 CrPC, and after receiving a police report, issued process against the petitioner and two others. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a Criminal Revision Petition No. 70 of 2015 before the Sessions Judge, Beed, which was dismissed on 26.05.2017. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the core legal issue: whether statements made in a departmental enquiry can constitute false evidence under Section 193 IPC. The court noted that Section 193 IPC applies only to false evidence given in a stage of a judicial proceeding. A departmental enquiry is not a judicial proceeding, and therefore, the statements made therein cannot attract the offence. Additionally, the court observed that even if the statements were considered to be made in a judicial proceeding, the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence under Section 193 IPC except on a complaint in writing by the court concerned, as mandated by Section 195 CrPC. Since the complaint was filed by the respondent directly, the cognizance was illegal. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Sessions Judge, and set aside the process issued by the Magistrate.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - False Evidence - Section 193 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Statements in Departmental Enquiry - The petitioner was accused of making false statements during a departmental enquiry initiated by the employer. The court held that Section 193 IPC applies only to false evidence given in a stage of a judicial proceeding. A departmental enquiry is not a judicial proceeding, and therefore, statements made therein cannot attract the offence under Section 193 IPC. The Magistrate's order issuing process was quashed. (Paras 5-8) B) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of Offence - Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Bar on Cognizance - The court held that even if the statements were considered to be made in a judicial proceeding, the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence under Section 193 IPC except on a complaint in writing by the court concerned. Since the complaint was filed by the respondent-complainant directly, the cognizance was illegal. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the statements made by the petitioner during a departmental enquiry can be treated as false evidence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of such an offence without a complaint from the court concerned as required under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Sessions Judge dated 26.05.2017, and set aside the process issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1053 of 2012.
Law Points
- Section 193 IPC applies only to false evidence given in a stage of a judicial proceeding
- not to statements made in a departmental enquiry
- Statements made before a departmental enquiry are not covered under Section 193 IPC
- Cognizance of offence under Section 193 IPC by Magistrate is illegal if the statement was not made in a judicial proceeding
- Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance of offence under Section 193 IPC except on complaint in writing by the court concerned
