2017 Supreme(SC) 755

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy, JJ.
State of Goa – Appellant
Versus
Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1427-1428 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos. 122-123 of 2016)
Decided On : 18-08-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
In cases instituted on police report there is no scope for the prosecution to examine any witness. But in cases instituted otherwise than on police report prosecution is required to adduce all evidence in support of its case.
A court is empowered to make a complain u/s 340 or 341 CrPC if an offence referred to in section 195(1)(b) prima facie appears to have been committed; and, an enquiry thereinto is expedient
On a complaint made u/s 340 or 341, Magistrate will follow procedure for taking cognizance in a case on police report.
Court making complaint is not obliged to afford opportunity to person concerned.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 195 and 193 – Offences detailed in section 195(1)(a) or (b) give rise to ‘summons’ or ‘warrant’ cases – offences detailed in section 193, on the other hand, would constitute a ‘warrant’ case. (Para 17)

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 244 and 340 – Case instituted on police report and otherwise – Framing of charge – In cases instituted on police report there is no scope for the prosecution to examine any witness – In cases instituted otherwise than on police report prosecution is required to adduce all evidence in support of its case. (Para 28)

       © Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 340 r/w section 195 – Court empowered to make a complain if an offence referred to in section 195(1)(b) prima facie appears to have been committed – And, an enquiry thereinto is expedient – Court need not make a preliminary enquiry before exercising the power – Complaint to be made not dependent upon magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon the administration of justice – Prima facie satisfaction of court irrespective of result of main case. (Para 31, 32, 36, 37, 39)

       AIR 1954 SC 397; (2005) 4 SCC 370; (1978) 1 SCC 18; (2002) 1 SCC 253; (2017) 1 SCC 113 – Relied upon

       (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 343 – On a complaint made u/s 340 or 341, Magistrate will follow procedure for taking cognizance in a case on police report. (Para 33)

       171(2010) Delhi Law Times 335; 1992 Crl.L.J. 3752 – Referred

       (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 340 – Court making complaint not to decide guilt or innocence of person concerned – Only to examine expediency of making an enquiry into any offence affecting the administration of justice in the interest of justice – Court making complaint not obliged to afford opportunity to person concerned. (Para 42)

       (f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 343 – Complaint received u/s 340 or 341 – If on preliminary enquiry and availability of material on record – To be treated as constituting a case on police report – In absence of preliminary enquiry or supporting material, trial court may embark upon an enquiry – Expression ‘as far as may be’ in section 343 – Complaints u/s 340 or 341 cannot be treated as otherwise than on police report. (Para 58)

       (g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 343(1) – Complaint made u/s 340 – Trial Magistrate making examining few witnesses by way of summary enquiry – Framing charge against respondent – No infirmity – Contention that case ought to be construed as a case otherwise than on police report to which warrant procedure was applicable, rejected. (Para 59, 60)

       Facts of the case:

       In Sessions Case No.18/2000 under Sections 120B and 302 IPC along with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 tried by the Court of Sessions, Margao, the respondent was a witness cited by the prosecution. While testifying in the session's trial, he resiled from this statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC. This made the Sessions Court to take the view that the respondent along with two other witnesses, who had similarly retracted from their earlier statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had tendered false evidence warranting initiation of a proceeding for the offence under Section 193 IPC.

       Accordingly, however without conducting any inquiry as permissible under Section 340 Cr.P.C., and in view of the prima facie satisfaction that the respondent and the other two witnesses have deliberately made contradictory statements on oath in order to screen and/or favour the accused in the session's trial, on the direction of the Sessions Court a complaint was filed nder Section 193 IPC against the respondent by the District and Sessions Judge.

       The Magistrate instead of insisting on the examination of the remaining witnesses in the list, framed charge against the respondent under Section 193 IPC.

       By the impugned order the High Court has quashed the charge framed against the respondent.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.