R R DIWAKAR Vs. B GUTTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners before this Court are A1, A2 and respectively in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Fiirst Class, Fourth Court, Bangalore, in CC. No.396 of 1973. A private complaint was filed by the respondent against them and A4 alleging that they had committed the offences under Ss.465 and 471 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused. This order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing summons to the accused is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) Sri K. J. Shetty, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by sub-clause (c) of S.195 CrPC, His argument is that an enquiry is pending before the Additional District Magistrate under the Press and Registration of Books Act,. 1867, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, and when the said enquiry was pending a declaration has been made and if it amounts to a false declaration, the person who should file a complaint is the Additional District Magistrate and a, private person has no competence to file such a complaint. As per the definition in S.1 of the Act, the Additional District Magistrate is a Magistrate and is a Court, and if any false document is produced before him, he should file a complaint under sub-clause (a) of S.105 CrPC. It is also contended that on the allegations in the complaint itself, the ingredients of the offences under Ss.465 and 471 IPC have not been made out and that no dishonest or fraudulent intention on behalf of the accused has been alleged in the complaint and as such the Court is not justified in issuing summons to, the accused. Even assuming that the statement made is false, unless it, is made dishonestly or fraudulently, it would not amount to an offence either under S.465 IPC or under S.471 IPC. It is pointed out that under S.19D of the Act it is the duty of the publisher of every newspaper to furnish the details referred to therein and the accused persons were duty bound to furnish those details, as the complainant was refusing to discharge his duties as printer and publisher. It is argued that even though disciplinary proceedings were taken against the complainant, he refused to resign, but continued to be a printer and publisher, and that was the reason why the proceedings were taken before the District Magistrate for cancellation of his declaration under S.8B of the Act. Strong reliance has been placed on the decisions in S.Dutt v. State of U. P., AIR. 1966 SC. 523, and in Pramatha Nath v. State, AIR. 1951 Cal. 581, in support of the contention that unless there is dishonest or fraudulent intention even if the statement is false,, it would not amount to offences under Ss.465 and 471 IPC. As on the face of the complaint itself no offence has been made out against the accused, it is urged that this is a fit case wherein the proceedings of the Court below should be quashed. Reliance has also been placed on the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR. 1960 SC. 866, in support of the said contention.

(3.) Sri C.V.Subba Rao, the learned Counsel appearing on behajf of the respondent-complainant, has contended that sub-clause(c)of Sec.195, CrPC is not attracted to the instant case. It is contended that there was no lis pending and that there were no parties before the Additional District Magistrate when the false declaration had been made before him. The filing of the cancellation application by the petitioners before the Additional District Magistrate has nothing to do with the production of the alleged false document before the Magistrate. There is no connection between that proceeding and this proceeding except that the person before whom the documents have been produced is one and the same. It is also contended that when the Additional District Magistrate received the false declaration, he was not acting as a Court and therefore he had no right to summon the witnesses cr record evidence. Strong reliance has been placed on the decision in Virindar Kumar Satyawadi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 153. and in Kafunakar Hegde v. Slate of Mysore, AIR. 1963 Mys. 153=(1963) 1 Mys.L.J. 22, in support of the said contentions. It is further contended that the petitioners have admittedly made a false declaration stating that the said declaration has been made by the complainant. This declaration presented to the Additional District Magistrate on 1-3-1973 has not been signed by the complainant. Hence, as it purports to be a statement sent and signed by the complainant, it is obviously a false document produced before the Additional District Magistrate. It is contended that the Court should look to the allegations made in the complaint and not what the accused urges before the Court. As what has been stated in the said declaration is false and it is purported to be sent and signed by the complainant, the complainant is exposed to the danger of prosecution under the Press and Registration of Books Act, for making any false statement. This false statement has been made by the accused with the idea of making wrongful gain to themselves and causing harm to the complainant under S.14 of the Act. As the statement made in the said declaration is false, the complainant is liable to be prosecuted and likely to suffer damages. It is contended that Illustration(j) to S.464, IPC would apply to the facts of this case and would amount to a false complaint as per S.465 IPC. It is, therefore, urged that the application discloses that the accused made this declaration dishonestly and fraudulently. It is further argued that the petitioners have not made any application under the inherent powers of the High Court under S.561A CrPC to quash the proceedings, but the petition has been filed under Ss.435 and 439 CrPC. The very decision in Kapur v. State of Punjab relied on by the petitioners is helpful to the respondent as it clearly shows that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the proceedings pending in the Court unless it comes within the definition laid down by their Lordships in that case. If the complaint discloses an offence, this Court should not interfere with the proceedings, but shquld allow it to be continued. It is urged that as the Court below, after applying its mind has issued process to the accused, the complainant should be permitted to adduce evidence and then the Court should find out whether the alleged offences have been made out or not. It is urged that at this stage this Court should not interfere with the proceedings pending before the trial Court.