The distinction between the offences of forgery and using a forged document under Sections 465/471 of the Indian Penal Code and the offences of false evidence and corruptly using false evidence under Sections 193/196 of the Indian Penal Code, and the applicability of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring a complaint from the Court for prosecution of certain offences.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - FORGERY - OFFENCE OF FORGERY AND USING FORGED DOCUMENT - DISTINCTION BETWEEN OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 193/196 AND 465/471 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 195 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:

Dr. Dutt, an expert witness in a Sessions trial, produced a diploma from the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, claiming to be a specialist in criminology. The diploma was challenged by the prosecution, and the Sessions Judge asked Dr. Dutt to produce all his academic diplomas and certificates for inspection. The diploma was taken on file as an exhibit, and the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused in the trial. Later, a prosecution was launched against Dr. Dutt under Sections 465/471 of the Indian Penal Code for forgery and using a forged document, without a complaint from the Court as required under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the offence committed by Dr. Dutt fell under Sections 193/196 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with false evidence and offences against public justice, and not under Sections 465/471, which deal with forgery and using forged documents. The Court found that Dr. Dutt's conduct in producing the diploma, even if it was forged, was not dishonest or fraudulent as required under Section 471, and that his intention was not to cause any disadvantage to anyone. However, his conduct was corrupt in the larger sense, as he intended to deceive the Court and support his false claim of being an expert.
Issues: 1. Whether the offence committed by Dr. Dutt fell under Sections 465/471 or 193/196 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether the prosecution against Dr. Dutt could be launched without a complaint from the Court under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court distinguished between the offences under Sections 193/196 and 465/471 of the Indian Penal Code. It held that Section 193 deals with the giving or fabricating of false evidence, while Section 196 deals with corruptly using evidence known to be false. On the other hand, Section 465 deals with the offence of forgery by making a false document, and Section 471 deals with the offence of using a forged document dishonestly or fraudulently. 2. The Court held that Dr. Dutt's conduct in producing the diploma, even if it was forged, was not dishonest or fraudulent as required under Section 471. His intention was not to cause any disadvantage to anyone, but to support his false claim of being an expert. Therefore, the offence fell under Sections 193/196, which require a complaint from the Court under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the prosecution against Dr. Dutt, holding that the offence fell under Sections 193/196 of the Indian Penal Code and required a complaint from the Court under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : Dr. S. Dutt who appeals to this Court by special leave against the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Misra of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dated February 12, 1965 was examined as an expert witness by the defence in a Sessions trial (State v. Matadin and others - S. T. No. 60 of 1957) in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi. Dr. Dutt claimed to hold a diploma from the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London to the effect that he had specialised in the subject of criminology. He was cross-examined inter alia about this claim by the District Government counsel who was assisted by one Mr. Shyam Narain, Deputy Superintendent, Police (C.I. D.), ;Lucknow, Mr. Shyam Narain earlier had deposed himself as an expert witness for the prosecution. Dr. Dutt s testimony ran counter to the testimony of Mr. Shyam Narain and the credentials of Dr. Dutt were challenged. The Judge asked Dr. Dutt to produce all his academic diplomas and certificates for his inspection. Dr. Dutt produced the aforesaid diploma and it was taken on file as Ex. P-71 together with a statement which was marked Ex. P-72. The Sessions Judge pronounced judgment on October 29, 1957 acquitting Matadin and the other accused. He passed strictures on the prosecution and did not accept the evidence of Mr. Shyam Narain, Government did not appeal against the acquittal and that matter ended there.

2. On November 12, 1957 prosecution applied to the Sessions Judge under S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the prosecution of Dr. Dutt under S. 193 of the Indian Penal Code. It was stated in the application that

" the defence witness No. 3 Dr. S. Dutt has committed forgery of certain diploma produce in this Hon ble Court during the course of his evidence and he has used these forged documents as genuine."

This application was rejected on November 12, 1957. Two days later Mr. Shyam Narain lodged a report at Police Station, Hardoi alleging that Dr. Dutt had committed an offence under Ss. 466/477 (subsequently changed to Ss. 465/471) of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi while giving evidence in Sessions trial State v. Matadin and others. The first information report stated that the diploma of the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London and the statement produceds by Dr. Dutt were forged and that Dr. Dutt had "used them in the Court with a bad motive, passing them as genuine". On October 26, 1958 a charge-sheet under S. 465/471, Indian Penal Code was filed against Dr. Dutt in the Court of the Judicial Officer III, Hardoi by the C. I. D., Police, Lucknow.

3. The case went before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Hardoi on transfer and at the commencement of the trial Dr. Dutt objected that he could not be legally prosecuted as the alleged facts disclosed an offence under S. 193, Indian Penal Code and a complaint in writing of the Court was required under S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before cognizance could be taken. Dr. Dutt also contended that Ss. 465/471 did not apply to the alleged facts and that the prosecution was attempting to evade the provisions of S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During arguments of his petition Dr. Dutt also claimed that S. 196 and not S. 471 of the Indian Penal Code applied to the facts of the case and that even that offence required that the procedure of S. 195 should have been gone through. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that Dr. Dutt was being prosecuted for forgery of the diploma and for using the said forged document and, therefore, the offence fell within Ss. 465/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) rejected the contentions of Dr. Dutt and held that there was no bar to the trial under Ss. 465/471. Indian Penal Code. Dr. Dutt filed revisions against the order in the Court of Session and in the High Court but without success. The order of the High Court was pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1965 Supreme(SC) 185

Cases Referred (1)