Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3939 (ALL)

JAYANTU LAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-12-11

BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Applicants Jayantu Lal, Rakesh Kumar, Sanjay and Pradeep have preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 20.8.2013 passed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 348 of 2012 (State v. Jayantu Lal and another), arising out of Case Crime No. C-389-A, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 195 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “I.P.C.”), Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur whereby an application under Section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”) filed by the applicants (accused persons) has been dismissed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. 2. It appears that the parties have been litigating for quite some time and during the course of this litigation one Smt. Asharfi Devi, herein opposite party No. 2/complainant, moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against all the four persons, named herein above, alleging that they have forged some documents and thereafter filed those documents before the Chief Judicial Magisgtrate, Jaunpur. They wanted to get the complainant Smt. Asharfi Devi convicted in serious offences. An affidavit in the name of one Badlu was also forged. This application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur and on 12.7.2007. He directed the police to register and investigate the matter. The case was registered as Case Crime No. C-389 A of 2007, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 469, 471, 474, 120-B and 195 I.P.C. Thereafter the police submitted the charge-sheet on 22.10.2007 against all the four revisionists namely; Jayantu Lal, Rakesh Kumar, Sanjay and Pradeep under the aforesaid sections. The matter went up to the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur as offence under Section 195 I.P.C. is triable by the Court of sessions. Section 195 I.P.C. stands for fabricating false evidence with intent to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby, cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is punishable for imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards. 3. Section 195 I.P.C. stands for fabricating false evidence with intent to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby, cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is punishable for imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards. 3. During the pendency of this trial before the learned Sessions Judge, the revisionists moved an application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. for discharge by denouncing of allegations of complainant Smt. Asharfi Devi and also on the ground that the prosecution of the offence under Section 195 I.P.C. is barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.8.2013. This order is under challenge before this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 4. Heard Sri J.J. Munir, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri V.K. Baranwal, learned counsel for private respondent No. 2, learned AGA for the State. 5. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it is beyond power of revisional jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence. Appraisal of evidence is not permissible in revision unless some glaring mistake is shown which establishes that injustice has been done. The Court can only interfere, if the impugned order is not in conformity with law or suffers from any material illegality, irregularity, perversity and jurisdictional error. The superior Court cannot interfere with order of the lower Court merely because it holds different opinion from that of the lower Court. Thus revisional Court has to navigate within the parameters laid down by Section 397 Cr.P.C. for exercise of this jurisdiction. 6. This Court also cannot adjudicate the validity and veracity of allegations of either party at this stage but the fact remains that the complainant has levelled allegations regarding certain papers which have allegedly been fabricated or forged outside the Court and thereafter used in the Court proceedings in order to procure conviction of the complainant. One affidavit prepared in the name of Badlu, is stated to have been disowned by Badlu himself. In any case the entire case was investigated by the police and the Investigating officer found enough evidence to file charge-sheet against all the aforementioned four revisionists under the aforesaid sections. Truthfulness and veracity of this evidence cannot be adjudicated at this stage in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also aised a legal question as well. Truthfulness and veracity of this evidence cannot be adjudicated at this stage in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also aised a legal question as well. He has submitted that a bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is applicable in the instant case as the prosecution has alleged that certain papers were forged and fabricated outside the Court and thereafter used in the Court proceedings. He submits that the enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. should have been conducted and thereafter the Court should have filed a complaint instead of private party. He has submitted that in view of bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the proceedings of the case are liable to be quashed. For deciding this issue, it would be appropriate to extract material portions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., which is herein below been extracted: 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. 1. No Court shall take cognizance- ..................... ..................... ..................... (b) (i). .............. ii. of any offence described in Section 473, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, which such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or..... iii. ............. [except on the complaint in writing or that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.] 8. The learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the fabricated documents were produced in the Court proceedings, therefore, the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is applicable. But It is evident that this bar is only applicable, if forgery and fabrication has been done in connection of documents, which were in the custody of the Court. If the forgery regarding such documents, has been done, their prosecution can be initiated only by the Court concerned through the complaint made in this regard. Where forgery was done outside the Court or prior to its introduction in the Court’s proceedings, the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable. If the forgery regarding such documents, has been done, their prosecution can be initiated only by the Court concerned through the complaint made in this regard. Where forgery was done outside the Court or prior to its introduction in the Court’s proceedings, the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable. In this connection, the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, [LaW (SC)-1998-2-94]; AD(SC)-1998-1-534 can be referred with profit: “The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal.” 9. Coming back to the facts of the case, complaint of Smt. Asharfi Devi indicates that the documents were forged and fabricated prior to the Court proceedings. The alleged fabrication or forgery was done outside the Court’s proceedings, therefore, the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable in the instant case. 10. The application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. was not sustainable on another ground as well. The scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that Section 245 Cr.P.C. is part of a procedure of trial of the warrant cases instituted otherwise than the police report. Meaning thereby, that Magistrate can use this provision in complaint cases only. This provision is not applicable in a State case, triable by the Sessions Court. As stated above, the offence under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is triable by the Sessions Court, therefore, the application for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. was not sustainable on this score also. 11. In the present dispute charge-sheet was filed by the police after investigating the case, therefore, the provision under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. was not available to the Sessions Judge or to the revisionists. 12. For the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality, while passing the impugned order. I find no scope for interference in the impugned order. The impugned order is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from material illegality, irregularity, perversity or jurisdictional error. The Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 13. I find no scope for interference in the impugned order. The impugned order is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from material illegality, irregularity, perversity or jurisdictional error. The Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 13. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Court through learned Sessions Judge, concerned within a fortnight. ——————