1. Civil suit for possession of land — Allegation of using forged document as evidence — Application for prosecution under Sections 476 and 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 227
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18th September, 1963
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Babu Lal, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 708 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate (Mr. K. P. Gupta, Advocate for Mr. K. R. Krishnaswamy, Advocate with him), for Appellant ; Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1; Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate (Mr. M. I. Khowaja, Advocate with him), for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies exclusively to witnesses giving or fabricating false evidence (Section 193 IPC). It does not cover the offence of using a forged document (Section 471 IPC), which remains prosecutable under the general procedure of Section 476.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 476 and 479-A - Indian Penal Code - Sections 192, 193, 463 and 471 - Prosecution for offences affecting administration of justice - Special procedure under Section 479-A applies only to witnesses who intentionally give false evidence or fabricate false evidence for use in judicial proceedings, corresponding to Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (Paras 5, 7) - This special procedure does not preclude the application of other procedures prescribed by the Code in respect of other offences (Para 7).
(B) Indian Penal Code - Section 192 vs Sections 463 and 471 - Distinction between fabricating false evidence and forgery - Fabrication of false evidence requires the intention that the false document may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding and lead to the forming of an erroneous opinion; whereas forgery and using a forged document are distinct offences (Para 8) - The offence of using a forged document under Section 471 is not covered by the special procedure of Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
In a civil suit for possession of land, a witness produced a document which the Trial Court found to be not genuine. The plaintiffs sought action against the witness for perjury and forgery. The Trial Court held that while prosecution for giving or fabricating false evidence was barred because no finding was recorded at the time of the final judgment as required by the special procedure under Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was expedient to file a complaint for the offence of using a forged document under the general procedure of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Findings of Court:
The offence of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine a document known to be forged under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code does not fall within the category of offences contemplated by Section 479-A(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: Whether the prosecution of a person for the offence of using a forged document in a judicial proceeding is governed by the special procedure under Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the general procedure under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The special procedure under Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to the prosecution of a witness for giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the offence of using a forged document under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is distinct from fabricating false evidence, the bar created by Section 479-A(6) does not apply, and resort may be had to the general procedure under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Paras 7, 8).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the offence of using a forged document under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, is governed by the special procedure under Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 7 )
3. Section 479-A applies only to witnesses giving false evidence or fabricating evidence, whereas using a forged document under Section 471, IPC, is a distinct offence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. The special procedure under Section 479-A, CrPC, is limited to perjury and fabrication of evidence and does not preclude prosecution for using forged documents under Section 476, CrPC. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the order directing a complaint under Section 476, CrPC, for an offence under Section 471, IPC, was upheld. (Para 10 )
6. Does Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to the offence of using a forged document in court?
No. Section 479-A applies exclusively to witnesses who intentionally give false evidence or fabricate false evidence. The offence of fraudulently or dishonestly using a forged document as genuine under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code does not fall within the category contemplated by Section 479-A. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
7. What is the legal distinction between fabricating false evidence and forgery?
Fabrication of false evidence requires the specific intention that the false document or circumstance lead to an erroneous opinion in a judicial proceeding. Forgery, under Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, is a distinct offence and is not included within the description of fabricating false evidence. (Para 8 )
8. When is the general procedure under Section 476, CrPC, barred by the special procedure under Section 479-A, CrPC?
Proceedings under Sections 476 to 479 are barred by Section 479-A(6) only if the person is a witness who has intentionally given or fabricated false evidence in a judicial proceeding, making them subject to the specific requirements of Section 479-A(1). (Para 5 )
Judgment
SHAH, J.: Jairam and three others- hereafter collectively called "the plaintiffs" -sued Babu Lal- appellant in this appeal-in the Court of the Munsiff, Koil District Aligarh, for a decree for possession of a strip of land, for removal of a wall and slab of stone and for an injunction restraining the making of certain constructions in the northern wall of the plaintiffs house. The plaintiffs claimed that Mohini wife of Jairam the first plaintiff had purchased the house occupied by them by sale deed dated August 1, 1932 from the vendor who was also named Mohini, who in her turn had purchased the house by sale deed dated July 25, 1917 from the original owner Kishan Lal.
2. Babu Lal who is the son of Kishan Lal pleaded that the vendor Mohini had acquired only a life interest in the house of by the deed under which the property was conveyed to her by Kishan Lal and the plaintiff s precesessor-in-interest had acquired no title under the sale deed dated August 1, 1932. In support of this plea Babu Lal gave evidence at the trial of the suit and tendered in evidence an agreement dated July 25, 1917 purported to be executed by Mohini to whom Kishan Lal had conveyed the house reciting that the sale deed in her favour was without consideration and that the she had only a life interest in the house.
3. The Trial Judge held that the agreement relied upon by Babu Lal was "not genuine and that Mohini predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had under the sale deed dated August 1, 1932 acquired title to the house in dispute and on that footing decree the suit. In appeal to the District Court the finding that the agreement was not genuine was not challenged.
4. Before the suit was disposed of by the Munsiff the plaintiffs had applied that action be taken against Babu Lal under S. 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because Babu Lal had given false evidence before the Court, that he had forged the agreement relied upon by him and that he had fabricated false evidence and had used such fabricated evidence at the trial, and had thereby committed offences punishable under Ss. 193, 209, 463 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Munsiff did not dispose of the application by his judgment deciding the suit. After the disposal of the suit the plaintiffs moved the Munsiff for an order on the application filed by them. The Munsiff held that no action could be taken against Babu Lal for the offence of intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in the suit for such action was barred by S. 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, but in his opinion it was expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint be filed against Babu Lal for offences "under Ss. 463 and 471 I. P. Code. Pursuant to this order of May 30, 1959a complaint was filed against Babu Lal charging him with committing an offence under Section 471 read with S. 463 Indian Penal Code by using the agreement dated July 25, 1917 knowing or having reason to believe that it was a forged document. The order passed by Trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Aligarh and a revision application to the High Court of Allahabad challenging the order was dismissed. With special leave Babu Lal has appealed to this Court.
5. Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure to be followed for prosecution of offenders in case of certain offences affecting the administration of justice. Section 476 sets out the procedure for prosecution of offenders for offences enumerated in S. 196(1)(b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion, that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry be made into any offence referred to in S. 195(1) (b) or (c) which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary record a finding to that effect
