2005 Supreme(SC) 454

2005(2) Supreme 549
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, B.N. Agrawal, H.K. Sema, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2005
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)­ No. 4111/2000)
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 904/1998 & 1069-1070/1998
Decided on 11-3-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Dr. A.M. Singhvi, T.L. Iyer, Y.P. Narula, Sr. Advocates, Joy Basu, Vinod Kumar, Rahul Tyagi, Madhurendra Kumar, B.K. Satija, V. Krishnamurthy, P.R. Kovilan, V. Balachandaran, Gopalakrishnan, Abhay Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, Abhijeet Chatterjee, Subodh Pathak, Ms. Seema Bengani, Chanchal Kr. Ganguly, Raghuvendra S. Srivastava, V. Senthil Kumar, V.J. Francis, P.I. Jose, Jenis V. Francis, Anupam Mishra, E.M.S. Anam, Shantha Kr. V. Mahale and Rajesh Mahale, Advocates.

Important point
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceedings in any Court i.e. during the time when document was in custodia legis.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 195(1)(b)(ii)—Expression “when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceedings in any Court”—Offence committed should be of such type which directly affected the administration of justice viz., which was committed after document is produced or given in evidence in Court—Offence committed with respect to a document at a time prior to its production or giving in evidence in Court could not be said to be an offence affecting administration of justice—Appellants, brothers of deceased, filed probate case for being granted probate of Will allegedly ­executed by their brother—Defendants in suit were the widow and son of deceased—Defendant-respondent filed complaint before Magistrate alleging appellants-plaintiffs to have forged the will—Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. bar could be attracted only when offence was committed with respect to a document after it had been produced or given evidence in a proceedings in Court—High Court rightly held bar not attracted.

       Held : The expression “when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court” occurring in clause (b)(ii) should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not appear to be in tune with clauses (a)(i) and (b)(i) and consequently with the scheme of Section 195 Cr.P.C. This indicates that clause (b)(ii) contemplates a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. (Para 9)

       Section 195(1) mandates a complaint in writing of the Court for taking cognizance of the offences enumerated in clauses (b)(i) and (b)(ii) thereof. Sections 340 and 341 Cr.P.C. which occur in Chapter XXVI give the procedure for filing of the complaint and other matters connected therewith. The heading of this Chapter is - ‘Provisions As To Offences Affecting The Administration Of Justice’. Though, as a general rule, the language employed in a heading cannot be used to give a different effect to clear words of the Section where there cannot be any doubt as to their ordinary meaning, but they are not to be treated as if they were marginal notes or were introduced into the Act merely for the purpose of classifying the enactments. They constitute an important part of the Act itself, and may be read not only a explaining the Sections which immediately follow them, as a preamble to a statute may be looked to explain its enactments, but as affording a better key to the constructions of the Sections which follow them than might be afforded by a mere preamble. (See Craies on Statute Law, 7th Ed. Pages 207, 209). The fact that the procedure for filing a complaint by Court has been provided in Chapter XXVI dealing with offences affecting administration of justice, is a clear pointer of the legislative intent that the offence committed should be of such type which directly affects the administration of justice, viz., which is committed after the document is produced or given in evidence in Court. Any offence committed with respect to a document at a time prior to its production or giving in evidence in Court cannot, strictly speaking, be said to be an offence affecting the administration of justice. (Para 10)

       An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh, after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the Court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would he highly detrimental to the interest of society at large. (Para 20)

       Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. (Para 24)