P C GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal reference has come up before us in the circumstances set out below:

(2.) WHEN the reference came up before one of us (Hon'ble C. D. Parekh. J.) for hearing, it appears to have been urged that in view of certain observations made by the Supreme Court in R R. Chari v. State Zof U. P. Narayan Das v. State of West Bengal Gopal Das Sindhi v State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 986 : 1961' (2) Cri LJ 39 and S. N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tewari the Division Bench decision of this Court in 1963 All LJ 334 : 1963 (2) Cri LJ 64 was no longer good law. The learned single Judge being of the opinion that the point raised 'before him was one of importance and likely to be raised in various cases which may be pending or may come up for decision to this Court referred the reference to a larger Bench. By the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the reference has consequently come up before this Full Bench.

(3.) DURING the hearing of the reference before us, learned Counsel appearing for Amar Singh urged firstly that on a proper construction of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code, in order to attract the bar of that provision it was necessary that the offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by P. C. Gupta and M. L, Mittal should have been committed in relation to a proceeding in Court which necessarily meant that at the time when the offence was committed there should have been some proceeding pending in Court. It was further contended that the proceeding contemplated by Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code must be proceedings in which the truthfulness or otherwise of the report lodged by P. C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal was under consideration before a Court. The submission was that since during remand proceedings and in proceedings for grant of bail the authenticity of the allegations made in the first information report lodged by P. C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal was not under enquiry before the learned Judicial Officer. Khurja, the alleged offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code could not be said to have been committed in relation to those proceedings. The first submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for Amar Singh is clearly untenable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (supra ). This decision of the Supreme Court may be usefully considered and analysed in some detail. The facts giving rise to the appeal before the Supreme Court were that on the 10th December, 1958, the appellant M. L. Sethi lodged a report with the Inspector General of Police. Chandigarh, alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 109. 114 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by resnondent R. P. Kapur and his mother-in-law. On the 18th July, 1959, R. P. Kapur. respondent, was taken in custody by the police following investigation in consequence of the report dated 10th December. 1958 lodged by M. L. Sethi. On the 25th July, 1959 the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent for his trial for various offences. There was no material before the Court showing that at any stage between the 10th December, 1958 and 25th July, 1959 any orders had been passed by the Court in connection with the investigation of the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent. In the meanwhile on the 11th April, 1959 the respondent filed a complaint in the Court of a learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Chandigarh, against the appellant for offences under Sections 204, 211' and 385 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant as well as the proceedings instituted by the police against him on the basis of the first information report lodged by the appellant were transferred under orders of the Supreme Court to the Court of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur. On the 10th December, 1962 this Court quashed the proceedings against the respondent. On the 6th August, 1963 and 5th October, 1963 two applications made by the appellant for dismissing the complaint filed against him under Section 211, I. P. C. and for other offences were rejected by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur. A revision filed by the appellant against the orders of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur, dated 6th August, 1963 and 5th October, 1963 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The appellant came up in revision to this Court but it was dismissed by C B. Capoor. J. (See M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur 1965 All WR (HC) 1711. Again the decision of this Court, M. L. Sethi appealed to the Supreme Court under a certificate granted to him. In the circumstances of the case set out above, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the Magistrate at Chandigarh was competent to take cognizance of the complaint filed against the appellant on the 11th April, 1959, in view of the provisions of Section 195 of the Code.