Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 627 (PNJ)

Tekan @ Tek Chand v. State of Haryana

2013-05-13

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) By way of this criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.9.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide which charge under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioner along with other co-accused. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the order dated 23.7.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge while disposing of the bail application of accused Devender alias Devi Lal, learned trial Court observed as under: “The allegations against the accused are under Section 195 of Indian Penal Code. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant is a Doctor and capable to install pellets in the body of someone else. The Investigating Agency could not reach the conclusion that what type of instruments were used by the accused in fabricating the injuries on the persons of Harphool, Tek Chand and Mohit. Further, there is no allegation that the accusedapplicant inflicted any injury on the person of complainant or any member of his side. There is also a crossversion. As per the allegations of the prosecution, the accused applicant created fabricated evidence in order to implicate the complainant. The prosecution has stated in its reply that the injuries on the persons of Tek Chand, Mohit and Harphool were found to be fabricated one during the scientific analysis. This Court is of the opinion that at this stage FSL report is just one piece of evidence and its veracity can only be checked on the touchstone of cross-examination. Moreover, Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates a complete bar to take a cognizance of the offence, punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 200, 205 to 211 and 228, when any such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any court, except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. In this case till today no court of competent jurisdiction has filed any complaint against the applicant accused that the evidence was found to be fabricated during any trial of proceeding”. In the background, it is argued that no offence under Section 195 IPC is made out against the petitioner and the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence on police report. In the background, it is argued that no offence under Section 195 IPC is made out against the petitioner and the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence on police report. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the forgery was committed much prior to the tendering of documents in the Court. Therefore, the petitioner can rightly be prosecuted under Section 195 of IPC. Heard. The learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, which reads as under: “Seventhly, on the same date, time and place you above named accused fabricated false evidence/report regarding firing shots upon Tek Chand, Harphool and Mohit with intent to procure conviction of offence with imprisonment for life or imprisonment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 195 IPC and within my cognizance”. It is alleged that the forgery was committed much prior to the production of the documents before the Court and not after the record had been submitted in the Court. In case law titled Harbans Singh and others Versus State of Punjab, 1986 (2) RCR (Criminal), 481, this Court observed as under: “The provision of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the new Code admit of two interpretations; one is the wider view, and the other a restricted or a narrow view. According to the wider view, the bar of this section would be applicable to all the cases involving the offences mentioned therein in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in Court irrespective of the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, while per the restricted view, the bar of this clause would be attracted only if the offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of documents which are already produced or given in evidence and not to the offences committed earlier to the proceedings in Court”. In latest case law C.P. Subhash Versus Inspector of Police Chennai and Ors., 2013 (2) Scale 19, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “In Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (supra) a Constitution Bench of this Court had authoritatively declared that Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in any Court and during the time the same was in custodia legis. This Court while taking that view approved the ratio of an earlier decision in Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. V. State of Bihar and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 493 where this Court held: 12. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the court records. xx xx xx xx 23. The Sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b) (ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court. In this case the main thrust of the argument to quash the charge under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code is the observations of learned Additional Sessions Judge made on 23.7.2012 in the bail application under Section 438 of the Code reproduced CRR No.3431 of 2012 5 above. It is held that the observations cannot be taken into consideration as subsequent stages of framing of charges or deciding the case on merits. These observations are not binding on this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction side. In this case a false injury report was prepared and given in investigation to frame the opposite party in a criminal case. The document was forged outside, given to the police and then produced in Court. Primafacie the Court has jurisdiction to frame charge under Section 195 of the Code and to take cognizance of the offence. At this stage, this Court will not interfere in the impugned order vide which the charge have been framed. The document was forged outside, given to the police and then produced in Court. Primafacie the Court has jurisdiction to frame charge under Section 195 of the Code and to take cognizance of the offence. At this stage, this Court will not interfere in the impugned order vide which the charge have been framed. The order passed is not an illegal or without jurisdiction and there is no bar in framing the charge or to take cognizance of the offence under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, this Court feels that the learned trial Court has committed no error in passing the impugned order of framing of charge against the petitioner and his coaccused. Thus, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.