Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
BHIMA RAZU PRASAD - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE, REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACU-II - RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5102 of 2020) with Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6720 of 2020) and Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6327 of 2020)
Decided on : 12-03-2021
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and 340 – Prosecution for Perjury – Section 195(1)(b)(ii) read with Section 340(1), Cr.P.C. will only apply in respect of offences which are committed during the time when document concerned was custodia legis or in custody of Court – Section 195(1)(b) creates a bar against taking cognizance of offences against administration of justice for the purpose of guarding against baseless or vindictive prosecutions by private parties – Court is the only appropriate authority which is entitled to raise grievance in relation to perjury, forgery of documents produced before Court, and other offences which interfere with effective dispensation of justice by Court – It for Court to exercise its discretion and consider suitability of making a complaint for such offences – However, there is a pertinent difference in wording of Section 195(1)(b) (i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) inasmuch as Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is restricted to offences which are committed in respect of a document which is “produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court” – Whereas Section 195(1)(b)(i) applies to offences against public justice which are committed not only in any proceeding in any court, but also “in relation to” such proceeding. (Paras 5 and 7)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and 340 – Prosecution for Perjury – Provision is intended to bar right to initiate prosecution only where offence committed has a reasonably close nexus with court proceedings, such that Court can independently determine need for an inquiry into offence with reference to its own records – Offence must be such that directly impacts administration of justice by Court – This would certainly be the case if document was in custody of Court at the time of commission of offence – However, bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) cannot be read as operating even in cases where offence against administration of justice was committed in respect of a document, 1) outside of Court, 2) by a person who was not yet party to Court proceedings, and, 3) at a time long before production of document before Court – Same would not have a reasonably close nexus with court proceedings – Bar against taking of cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(i) may also apply where a person who is initially not a party to court proceedings fabricates certain evidence, and 1) subsequently becomes a party and produces it before Court; or; 2) falsely deposes as a witness before Court on strength of such evidence, for the purpose of causing the Court to form an erroneous opinion on a point material to result of proceedings. (Paras 7 and 15)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 193 and 195(1)(b)(i) and 340 – Prosecution for Perjury – Purpose of Explanation 2 to Section 193, IPC is evidently to ensure that a person who fabricates false evidence before an investigating or inquiring authority prior to trial of case does not escape penalty – This encompasses all nature of proceedings, whether civil or criminal – However, whether commission of such offence would require complaint of a Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) would depend upon authority before whom such false evidence is given – Section 195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. will not bar prosecution by investigating agency for offence punishable under Section 193, IPC, which is committed during stage of investigation – This is provided that investigating agency has lodged complaint or registered the case under Section 193, IPC prior to commencement of proceedings and production of such evidence before trial court – In such circumstance, same would not be considered an offence committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. (Paras 23.1 and 24)
(D) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and 340 – Acquisition of assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Appellant/Accused No. 1 had not raised defence of holding money in escrow for Accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the time of search conducted at his house – Supposed agreement of sale was also not produced – This defence was raised by Accused Nos. 2 and 3 at a highly belated stage, almost a year after recovery of seized currency, though Appellant had corresponded with Accused No. 2 in May-June, 2001 – It is improbable in ordinary course of conduct that a person would wait so long to claim an amount of approximately Rs. 80 lakhs which was required for completion of sale transaction – Stamp paper on which sale deed was made was also proved to be illegal – Appellants/accused entered into an elaborate conspiracy and attempted to create a false circumstance of escrow transaction for the purpose of shielding Appellant/Accused No. 1 from prosecution – Appeals dismissed both on law and on merits. (Paras 23 and 24.1)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise out of judgment dated 6.01.2020 in Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 and 1091 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Appellant/Accused No. 1 was working as Regional Manager (South) at Chennai with the Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. On 4.01.2001 case was registered against the Appellant under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, officers of the Respondent investigative agency conducted search at the Appellant’s residence on 24.01.2001 on the basis of search warrant issued by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. During the course of this search, an amount of Rs. 79,65,900/(seized currency), in addition to jewellery and property papers, was seized from Appellant’s residence. Since these assets were found to be disproportionate to the Appellant’s known sources of income, on 9.03.2001 a separate disproportionate assets case was registered against him under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. It is this case that forms the factual crux of the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
It is improbable in the ordinary course of conduct that a person would wait so long to claim an amount of approximately Rs. 80 lakhs which was required for completion of sale transaction. The stamp paper on which the sale deed was made was also proved to be illegal. Hence it is apparent that the Appellants/accused entered into an elaborate conspiracy and attempted to create a false circumstance of escrow transaction for the purpose of shielding Appellant/Accused No. 1 from prosecution.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of judgment dated 6.01.2020 in Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 and 1091 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras ("High Court"). Since they involve common facts and question of law, appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5102 of 2020 shall be taken as the leading case.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
3.1 The Appellant/Accused No. 1 was working as Regional Manager (South) at Chennai with the Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. On 4.01.2001 case was registered against the Appellant under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"); and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act"). Subsequently, the officers of the Respondent investigative agency conducted search at the Appellant's residence on 24.01.2001 on the basis of search warrant issued by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. During the course of this search, an amount of Rs. 79,65,900/- ("seized currency"), in addition to jewellery and property papers, was seized from the Appellant's residence. Since these assets were found to be disproportionate to the Appellant's known sources of income, on 9.03.2001 a separate disproportionate assets case was registered against him under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. It is this case that forms the factual crux of the present appeal.
3.2 During the course of investigation, Accused No. 2 V. S. Krishnan (Appellant in the connected appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6720 of 2020) and Accused No. 3 Murugesan (Appellant in the connected appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6327 of 2020) wrote letter dated 4.02.2002 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACU-II claiming that the seized currency did not belong to the Appellant/Accused No. 1. They contended that Accused No. 2 had entered into agreement of sale dated 24.01.2001 to purchase properties from Accused No. 3, for which a sum of Rs 80 lakhs was to be paid in advance. Since Accused No. 2 was not available on that date for execution of the written agreement, he had entrusted the seized currency, along with a duplicate copy of the agreement signed by him, to the Appellant. The agreement was to be executed by Accused No. 3 in the presence of Appellant. However, since the Appellant's house was raided on that date, the money could not be paid and the agreement of sale could not be executed. Hence Accused Nos. 2 and 3 sought recovery of the seized currency.
Accused No. 2 produced the purported sale deed dated 24.01.2001 (in duplicate) typed out on stamp paper before the Investigating Officer in support of their claim. He also produced certain books of accounts to show that he had financial capacity to purchase the properties from Accused No. 3, in which entry was made on 20.01.2001 pertaining to payment of advance price of Rs 80 lakhs to Accused No. 3. However, pertinently, the Appellant had not taken any such defence at the time of search conducted in his house on 24.01.2001, nor had he produced the duplicate sale deed before the officers of the Respondent agency at that time.
3.3 Investigation conducted by the Respondent revealed that the market value fixed by the State Government in respect of the two properties described in sale deed dated 24.01.2001, was much below Rs 80 lakhs. Further, that the first property was equitably mortgaged with the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. since 4.9.1998; whereas a portion of the second property had already been sold to other persons. That the license of Accused No. 4 stamp vendor S. Mohankumar, through whom the stamp papers of the sale deed were issued on 11.01.2001, was cancelled on 7.10.1992. No stamp paper of any denomination had been issued to him during the period of 1998 to 2001. Therefore, the Respondent's claim is that the Appellant conspired with Accused Nos. 2-4 to fabricate false deed of agreement for sale for t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
