The main legal point established in this judgment is that the offence committed by Hari Nath Singh fell under Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code, not Section 218. Therefore, the bar of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply, and a private complaint could be filed against Hari Nath Singh.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 192, 193, 218; Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 195 The Court analyzed the distinction between Section 193 and Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 193 deals with giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding, while Section 218 deals with the intentional preparation of a false record by a public servant. The Court held that the offence committed by Hari Nath Singh fell under Section 192, which covers fabrication of false evidence in a judicial proceeding. The Court also discussed the bar of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a complaint in writing from the Court for offences under Section 193. The Court concluded that the bar did not apply to Hari Nath Singh's case as his offence fell under Section 192. The Court further held that Section 218 is an independent and distinct offence, and a private complaint can be filed for an offence under this section.
Fact of the Case:
Kamla Prasad Singh filed three complaints against Hari Nath Singh for abetment under Sec. 218 Indian Penal Code. The complaints alleged that Hari Nath Singh conspired with two other individuals to make false entries in the Khasra and applied for correction of the Jamabandi. The High Court accepted Hari Nath Singh's application to quash the proceedings based on Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which bars private complaints for offences under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the offence committed by Hari Nath Singh fell under Section 192, not Section 218, and therefore the bar of Section 195 did not apply. The Court dismissed one appeal and allowed two others, remitting the cases for trial.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the distinction between Section 193 and Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 193 deals with giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding, while Section 218 deals with the intentional preparation of a false record by a public servant. The Court held that the offence committed by Hari Nath Singh fell under Section 192, which covers fabrication of false evidence in a judicial proceeding. The Court also discussed the bar of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a complaint in writing from the Court for offences under Section 193. The Court concluded that the bar did not apply to Hari Nath Singh's case as his offence fell under Section 192. The Court further held that Section 218 is an independent and distinct offence, and a private complaint can be filed for an offence under this section.
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the offence committed by Hari Nath Singh fell under Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code, not Section 218. Therefore, the bar of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply, and a private complaint could be filed against Hari Nath Singh.
Result: The Court dismissed one appeal and allowed two others, remitting the cases for trial according to law.

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : Kamla Prasad Singh the appellant had filed three complaints in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, (Judicial) Varanasi for the prosecution of Hari Nath Singh (respondent No. l) under Sec. 218 Indian Penal Code. In each of these complaints Harinath was a co-accused with another. In one, it was Mangla Prasad Pandey, Ahlmad, Court of Tahsildar, Sadar Varanasi, in another it was Ramchander Lekhpal of Village Balua and in the third it was Ram Samraylal Lekhpal of Village Cholapore. In each case Hari Nath Singh was said to have abetted the offence committed by his co-accused. The circumstances in which the complaints were lodged were common and may now be briefly stated.

2. Certain Bhumidari lands in these villages were the property of Nankoo S/o Meher Singh and Sumitra widow of one Ajudhia Singh. On December 4, 1962,Nankoo sold his half share to Kamla Prasad Singh and some others. Kamla Prasad s complaint is that Hari Nath Singh in conspiracy with the two Lekhpals got certain forged entries to be made in the Khasra after the sale in favour of Kamla Prasad, and applied for the correction of the Jamabandi. The Ahlmad in conspiracy with Hari Nath Singh ante-dated the said application to November 9. 1962, to make it appear that it was made prior to the sale-deed and to shield the Lekhpals. The application was entered in the register of Jamabandis as Case No. 116 dated November 9, 1962 although the case bearing that number was one between Bhagwati Singh and Bhagwati of Birbalpura Kaswal Raja.

3. After the complaints were in Court, Hari Nath Singh filed an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the offence, if any, was one under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure barred the private complaints. The High Court accepted the application for the above reason and quashing the proceedings against Hari Nath Singh ordered his discharge. In these appeals by certificate the order of the High Court is questioned.

4. The first question is what are the distinct features of Section 193 and Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 193 states the punishment for giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceeding. Section 191 defines the offence of giving false evidence and Section 192 the offence of fabricating false evidence. We may ignore Section l91 because here admittedly there is no giving of false evidence as defined in the Penal Code. The offence of fabricating false evidence comes into existence when a person causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or makes any document containing a false statement intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding etc. and so appearing cause an erroneous opinion be formed touching a point material to the result of such proceeding. The offence is a general one and does not specify the person or the kind of document. It may be any person and the fabricated evidence may be in any form. Section 218 on the other hand deals with the intentional preparation of a false record by a public servant with the object of saving or injuring any person or property. The difference between the two section is clearly noticeable. Section 192 deals with Judicial proceeding and the false evidence is intended to be used in a judicial proceeding. Section 218 deals with public servants and there the gist is the intentional preparation of a false record with a view of saving or injuring any person or property. This need not have relation to a judicial proceeding as such.

5. The bar of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was invoked by Hari Nath Singh arises thus. No Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 193 when such offence alleged to have been committed i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document