S DUTT Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. S. Dutt who appeals to this Court by special leave against the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Misra of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dated February 12, 1965 was examined as an expert witness by the defence in a Sessions trial (State vs. Matadin and others - S. T. No. 60 of 1957) in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi. Dr. Dutt claimed to hold a diploma from the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London to the effect that he had specialised in the subject of criminology. He was cross-examined inter alia about this claim by the District Government counsel who was assisted by one Mr. Shyam Narain, Deputy Superintendent, Police (C.I. D.), ;Lucknow, Mr. Shyam Narain earlier had deposed himself as an expert witness for the prosecution. Dr. Dutt's testimony ran counter to the testimony of Mr. Shyam Narain and the credentials of Dr. Dutt were challenged. The Judge asked Dr. Dutt to produce all his academic diplomas and certificates for his inspection. Dr. Dutt produced the aforesaid diploma and it was taken on file as Ex. P-71 together with a statement which was marked Ex. P-72. The Sessions Judge pronounced judgment on October 29, 1957 acquitting Matadin and the other accused. He passed strictures on the prosecution and did not accept the evidence of Mr. Shyam Narain, Government did not appeal against the acquittal and that matter ended there.

(2.) On November 12, 1957 prosecution applied to the Sessions Judge under S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the prosecution of Dr. Dutt under S. 193 of the Indian Penal Code. It was stated in the application that

(3.) The case went before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Hardoi on transfer and at the commencement of the trial Dr. Dutt objected that he could not be legally prosecuted as the alleged facts disclosed an offence under S. 193, Indian Penal Code and a complaint in writing of the Court was required under S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before cognizance could be taken. Dr. Dutt also contended that Ss. 465/471 did not apply to the alleged facts and that the prosecution was attempting to evade the provisions of S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During arguments of his petition Dr. Dutt also claimed that S. 196 and not S. 471 of the Indian Penal Code applied to the facts of the case and that even that offence required that the procedure of S. 195 should have been gone through. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that Dr. Dutt was being prosecuted for forgery of the diploma and for using the said forged document and, therefore, the offence fell within Ss. 465/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) rejected the contentions of Dr. Dutt and held that there was no bar to the trial under Ss. 465/471. Indian Penal Code. Dr. Dutt filed revisions against the order in the Court of Session and in the High Court but without success. The order of the High Court was pronounced on February 12, 1965 and the present appeal is against that order.