STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ALI BIN RAJAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I regret my inability to agree on the construction of sec. 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts have been stated in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice and I need not restate them.

(2.) The reference has been made on the ground that the decision in the case of Noor Mahomed Cassum v. Kaikhosru Maneckjee 4 Bom.L.R. 268 to the effect that sanction under sec. 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code for an offence under sec. 471 of the Indian Penal Code is not necessary in respect of a use made of the document outside the Court is not approved in the subsequent decisions in Emperor v. Sanjiv Ratnappa 34 Bom. L.R. 1090 and Emperor v. Rachappa Yellappa 38 Bom.L.R. 440. The relevant part of sec. 195 is as under:-

(3.) Two different and divergent interpretations have been placed before us on the meaning and effect of sec. 195(1)(c) of the Code. Mr. Trivedi contended that when an offence described in sec. 463 or an offence under sec. 471 is alleged to have been committed by a party to a proceeding and in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in the proceedings a complaint by the Court would be necessary to prosecute the person. The argument was that the material and relevant date to be considered under the section is the date on which the Court is invited to take the cognizance of the complaint and in order to attract the provisions of the sub-clause two ingredients are to be satisfied viz. (i) the offence mentioned in the sub clause must be alleged to have been committed by a party to the proceedings (ii) and in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in the proceeding. The offence mentioned in the section might have been committed prior to the date of cognizance but if the Court is satisfied of the above ingredients the complaint could be filed only by the Court. For this proposition reliance was placed on the decisions of Emperor v. Sanjiv Ratnappa 34 Bom. L.R. 1090 Emperor v. Rachappa Yellappa 38 Bom. L.R. 440 Nalini Kanta Laha v. Anukul Chandra Laha I.L.R. 44 Cal 1002 Thadi Subbi Reddi v. Emperor A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 869 Hayat Khan v. Emperor A.I.R. 1932 Sind 90 Re. Parmeswaran Nambudri I.L.R. 39 Madras 677 Satya Dev Bushehari v. Ghansiam A.I.R. 1953 Him. Pradesh 117 and Harprasad v. Hans Ram A.I.R. 1966 All. The same view is also taken in King Emperor v. Raja Mustafa Ali Khan (1905) Oudh Cases 313.