State of U. P. v. Suresh Chandra Srivastava & Ors.

Judgment

·'. >n F.', STATE.OFU:P.· sURESH CHANDRA s.RIVASTAVA & ORS.· May 3, 1984 . [S. MURTAZA FA.zAL Au, A VARA~AAA1AN AND . RAN~A~Arn MISR~,JJ,J Code of Criminal Procedurec...s, 195(/)(b)(ii°r-Scope of.,. The respondCntS.in the ·3pp:al and the ·petitione~s in" th~ ·special l~ave . petitions were the same persoris arid ~ere erDvioyees o( : the.- AJlab-abaci_ High 'CoUrt .. The:Y W(re found to. have femoved ·some. used court fee stamps from·. ol_d files and [e-us~d them in ne·w ·cases:· ~e Reiistrar_ with, th_e perinission of, · . · tbe.Chfof Justice of"the High Court reported~., tlie matter: to ·.the .PoliCe~ . The .. Pofic.e after investigai.iofi subinitteci before the1rial Co~Ct three charge~sheets for off~nCes undei ss. 262. 263,. 467--471 and 120B, I.P.C. - In an application· tiledby the resPondent for quashini-th~ PrOceedings,~the High Cotirt. held· that so far ·as the offences undcr·sS:-467.

471 and 120B,. f.P.C. werC:concerned as they .fell w~tbin the 3mbii o(secti_gn_ 195(J)(b)(ii)- Of the Criminal Procedure rio cogni- - zance could be ~en by thejriatcoU:rt without a complaint being filed, b"ut for· Othet offences the_ pro'ceeding~ Would continue. Hence these' cross· appeitS and · $pecial _Jeavc:: p~titit~ofls. -:riis~isSing the appe.als and the petitionS, .. HELD : The 1:aw .iS: ri0w wen 'settledthat Whe-re. an accused commits som~ Offences _which· are: separate and distiflct frOm those contained·_ in s.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, s.195 .will affect.Only the ·offe~ce;·meritiOned there- . in unJesS: such offences form an int~gral part scr aS-to amount to offl!nces committed _'as a part .Of the Sarrie transaction,_ in which case the other offences also. __ would fall within the ambit of s. !95:orthe Code. [741 Di I~l"the i~siaiit case: On .the factsnarrated by the Registrar in his cOmPiaint · no _offen-ce unciCr· ss.

467, 471 and l20B, I.P.C. is at.all revealed. At the most" the .· offe.nces against the accused would fall withiri. the ambit or sections 262, 263,' 380 .. I and 4iO, I.P.C; which do not require ·a compJ.ifnf under s. 195 of the Code of \i.... Criminal Prcicedurl!. · .. As ~uch · it._ is-ncit necessary -'to go iD.tO the qllesdon as 'to ·what offences are connected with ss~ 467.-471 and_ ·-120B and ~hkh are Severable-· -· .· from them .. The lligh Court· waS fully justifi.C_d·. in quashirig the proCeediu&s • agaui"st theaccµsed as far as. offe_D.ces under Ss-:' 467~-471 and 120B. I.P.C. ·were con~rn~d, ·not because they Were ·covered_ bys.~ 195. of .the. Code but because ciUegatiOns contained· in. thC complaint_ did not . contstitUte these· offences.• The ·_ lJ-igh Couti was_ further ·rutlr jtistified ·in dirCcting that other o~ences men\ioned above did flat require a __ c_omplaint·under s.195.and _would ~veto be.tried. [741E-G[ tJ.P, STATE v. s.c. SRIVASTAVA (Fazal Ali, J.)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 461-466 of 1980 From the Judgment & Order dated 9.11.78 High Court in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 1691 and 1698 of 1979. . AND of the Allahaba<l 1655, 1656, 1657, Special Leave Petition Nos. 903-908 of 1984 . Da!veer Bhandari & H.M. Singh for the appellant. P. Govindan Nair and Pramod Swarup for the respondent-. Pramod Swarup for the petitioner in SLP Nos. 903-908 of 1984. The Judgment of the Court was delive~ed by FAZAL ALI, J. These appeals by ~pecial leave 'arise out of a judgment dated January 9, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court refus.ing to quas\l<lhe proceedings in toto which were pending before · the Chief J1,1dicial Magistrate, Allahabad, in exercise of ihe powers under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {hereinafter to be referred to" as the 'Code'). The High Court, howevet, quashed the proceedings only in respect of offences under ss. 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Peria!

Code and directed prosecution .of the respondents in respect of other offences to proceed according to law. In order to understand the implication of the judgment of the High. Court, it may be necessary to narrate a few facts. It appears that some time· in the year 1967 S.hankar Lal Bhargava, who was officiating as Stamp Reporter in the Registry of the Allahabad High Court, with the aid of Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Bishan Swarup, who were clerks of Advocates, removed used stamps and out of them reused three court-fee stamps of the value of Rs. JOO each. ·in First Civil Appea\Nos. 281/67, 282/67 and L.57/67. When the niatter was detected; an enquiry was ordered and the Judidal Department of the High Court reported to· the Registrar that court-fee stamps of the value of Rs. 23,007.50 p. (9n 15 sheets) were missing from the judicial file of First Appeal No. 186 of 1960.

The enquiry further revealed that in several other cases also court-fee stamps had been taken out· from the original files and reused in new cases. The Registrar of the High Court suspected that a ~ell-organised gang of racketeers was ope~ting in ihe High Court to defral!d the Government by ~urreptitiously I "'mciving the used stamps from the judicial files and re-using them in new cases. Th~ Registrar, with the permission o( the Chief Justice of the High Court, reported .. the matter to'the Inspector General of Police, l~,P., who ordered the Criminal Investigation Department of U.P. to investigate into the matter and ultimately three charge-s.heets Were submitted for offences under ss. 262, ;263, 467, 471, 420 and l'fOB of the Indian Penal Code. The responde*ts filed an application before the High Court contending that as Offences under ss. 467, 471 and t20B, I.P.C. fell within the purview pf s. 194 of the Code, no prosecution could be launched without the procedure, laid down ins.

195, followed. It is common ground ~hat no complaint as requ.ired by the mandatory · proyisions of s. 195 of the Code having been made, the proceedings . . could not be proce~ded. The High Court held that so far as the offence under ss. 4p7, 47l·and 120B, l.P.C. were concerned as they fell within the ambit of s. 165((\)b)(ii) of the Code, no co11nizance could be taken by 1the Magistrate without a complaint being filed. The relevant portfon of s. 195(1J(b) inay be extracted thus : "195.(1)

1No Court shall take cognizance- . xx I xx xx (b)(ii) tjf any· offence described in section 463, or punishable u~der section 471, section ~475 or section 476, of the said I Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence i~ a proceeding in any court, or (iii) of Jny criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, ~r the ah~tment of, any offence specified.in subclause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on th¢ complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court Ito Which that Court is subordinate." On the fac)s mentioned above, it is clear to us that in the complaint sent byl the Registrar to the Inspector General of Police, offences mention~d were offences under ss. 262, 263,_ 467, 380, 420, and 4 71 but frbm a perusal of. the recitals in the original Memorandum which formed the basis of the complaint it seems to ns that the only offences which have made ont would be offences undet ss.

262, 26~, 380 and 420 which are obviously not covered, by ... s, 195 of the Cod'e. . ' l. J, .. \J.P. STATB v. S.C. SRIVAS1AVA (Faza/ A/i, J.) The High Court held that the offences under ss. 467, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. even if made out could not be taken cognizance of by the trial CO)lrt with.out a complaint under s. 195 of ·the Code. perusal of the facts shows that there is .not even a hint regarding forging any document or using a forged document. Taking the complaint at its face \alue, at the most the cases against the accused would fall within the ambit of ss. 262, 263, 380 and 420, I.P.C; which.do not require a complaint under s. 195. The fact that some persons aided and abetted the detaching Of the used stamps from the old Jiles and re-using them in the other cases does not involve any process of forgery or use of a. forged document. In these circumstances, therefore, it is not necessary for. us to go into the broader question as to whether if offences under ss.

467, 471 and UOB, I.P.C. are committed, 1he complaint could proceed or not. The law is now well settled that where .an accused commits some offences which are separate and distinct from lhose contained in s. 195, and section 195 will affect only· the offences mentioned therein unless such offences form an integral part so as to amount to oifellces committed as a part of the same !ransaction, i~ which case· the other offences also would fall within the ambit of s. 195 of ·the Code. In the instant case", a(already pointed out by us, on the facts narrated by the Registrar in his complaint no offence under ss. 467, 471 and 120B, l.P.C. is at all revealed and as such it is not necessary to -go into the question as to what offences are connected with ss. 467, 471 and l 20B and which are severable from them."

The High Court was fully justified In quashing the proceedings against the accused as.far as offences under ss.,467, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. were concerned, not because they were covered by s. ]f)5 of the Code but "because allegations contained in the complaint did not constitute these. offences. The High Court was further fully justified in directing. that other offences mentioned above did not require a . complaint under s. 195 and wou.ld have to be tried. rn· the view ,that we . take it is not. necessary for us to decide the broader question of law posed by the High Court, i.e., ·whether or not offences under ss. 467, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. along with other offences, were covered bys. 195 of the Code . · SVPREME COURT REPORTS I (1984] 3 s. fl R. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the.

High Court and dismiss the·appeals and the special leave petitions and direct that I cases under sections 262, 263, 380/34 and 420/34, Indian Penal Code be tried without aily complaint under section 195 of the Code. H.S.K. Appeals & Petitions dismissed;· I