UJAGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UJAGAR Singh has challenged his conviction under Sections 466 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code, whereunder, he stands sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and fine of Rs. 200, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months for the first mentioned offence and no separate sentence was imposed for the second mentioned offence. The trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid and his appeal to the Sessions Judge remained abortive.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that one Harmel Kaur complained against her husband that he had committed bigamy by marrying a second time a woman named Dhan Kaur. As a part of preliminary evidence, she produced Hazara Singh and Chand Singh as witnesses before Shri Dina Nath, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gidderbaha. The statements were recorded on 20th October, 1973 and 8th November, 1973 respectively, on the dictation of Shri Dina Nath, Judicial Magistrate, to the Petitioner Ujagar Singh, who was then working as a Reader in that Court. The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner incorporated words at the end of those statements to the effect that one Surjit Singh had seen the entire occurrence with his own eyes. It is immaterial as to what fate that complaint ultimately met but the matter came to light of the said Magistrate. He made a reference to the Sessions Judge, Faridkot. After a preliminary inquiry was held against the Petitioner, a case was registered against him. On completion of the investigation, the police report was put in, the accused was charged and convicted as aforesaid.

(3.) IT was then contended that there was a legal bar to the trial and the conviction arising therefrom has to be quashed. It was contended that the conviction under Section 218, Indian Penal Code, cannot sustain as it is an offence which falls under Section 195(i)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that offence could only be tried if a complaint in writing had been made by the Court when such offence was alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in the Court. Carrying the argument further, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the offence under Section 466, Indian Penal Code, was also an offence described in Section 463 Indian Penal Code and as such that offence also could not be tried except on the complaint in writing of the Court when the offence was committed in respect of a document prepared by the Court in judicial proceedings. In support thereof, a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Kamla Prasad Singh v. Hari Nath Singh and Anr. : AIR 1968 S.C. 19, was cited to contend that at least the offence under Section 218 Indian Penal Code, could not be taken cognizance of except on a complaint because the offence according to the learned Counsel was within the ambit of Section 193, Indian Penal Code and not under Section 218, Indian Penal Code.