TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stream. That question, in this appeal, has arisen from the following facts: A complaint was filed by second respondent (Lal Narain Singh) in the court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging offences, inter alia, under Sections 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the facts that appellants had forged a document (certified copy of Jamabandi - Rent Roll) and produced it in a court of Executive Magistrate which was then dealing with proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police as provided in Section 156(3) of the Code. Police registered an FIR on the basis of the said complaint and after investigation laid a charge-sheet against appellants for those offences. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of those offences and issued process to the accused. Appellants then moved Patna High Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the prosecution on the main ground that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the said offences in view of the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code. Before the High Court, appellants sited the decision of the Court in Gopala Krishna Menon (supra) b ut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt albeit the act of forgery was perpetrated prior to its production in the court. Any such construction is likely to ensue unsavoury consequences. For instance, if rank forgery of a valuable document is detected an the forgery is sure that he would imminently be embroiled in prosecution proceedings he can simply get that document produced in any long drawn litigation which was either instituted by himself or some body else who can be influenced by him and thereby pre-empt the prosecution for the entire long period of pendency of that litigation. It is a settled proposition that if the language of a legislation is capable of more than one interpretation, the one which is capable of causing mischievous consequences should be averted. Quoting from Gill vs. Donald Humberstone Co. Ltd. (1963-1-W.L.R.929) Maxwell has stated in his treaties (Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn. Page 105) that if the language is capable of more than one interpretation we ought to discard the more natural meaning if it leads to unreasonable result and adopt that interpretation which leads to a reasonable practicable result . The clause which we are now considering contains enough indication to show th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocument was in custodia legis. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as on affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the Court records. The three Judges Bench of this Court in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai s case (supra) has interpreted the corresponding section in the old Code, [Section 195(1)(c)] in almost the same manner as indicated above. It is advantageous in this context to extract clause (c) of Section 195(1) of the old Code. No Court shall take cognizanceof any offence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the same Coda, when each offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding except on the complain in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. (underline supplied) The issue involved in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai s case related to the applicability of that sub-section to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Judge made reference to the decisions in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai (cited supra) and Goswami vs. High Court of M.P., 1979(1) SCC 373, and observed that the ratio in those decisions support the view taken b y them. The forgery alleged in Goswami s case took place during the period when the document in question was in the custody of the court and in such a case t he bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would certainly apply. But, with great respect, we are unable to agree that the ratio in Laljibhai Somabhai would support the conclusion reached in Gopalakrishna Menon s case (supra). Shri K.B. Sinha learned senor counsel contended that the position which held the field pursuant to Patel Laljibhai Somabhai s case decision has since been changed with the enactment of the new Code because of absence of the words ( by a party to any proceeding in an y court ) in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents contended that the only object for deletion of those words was to advance the protection of the section to other persons as well who might not have been parties to the litigation. A scrutiny of the sub clause in juxtaposition with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
