Back
2001 Supreme(Raj) 1239
Supreme Court
Honble K.T. THOMAS, S.N. PHUKAN & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Pritish - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 2001
Decided On : November 21, 2001
V.A. Mohta, Sr. Advocate, Arun S. Agrawal and Nikhil Nayyar, Advocates, for Appellant R.B. Masoodkar, S.S. Shinde and S.V. Deshpande, Advocates, for Respondents
Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 340 – As to offences affecting the administration of justice – Using forged documents – There is no statutory requirement to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person against whom that Court might file a complaint before the Magistrate for initiating prosecution proceedings – It is a preliminary inquiry stage – Held – The person against whom proceedings were initiated u/Sec.340(1) Cr.P.C. has no right of an opportunity of being heard to participate in the preliminary enquiry. (Paras 15 to 17)
Be it noted that the court at the stage envisaged in Section 340 of the Code is not deciding the guilt or innocence of the party against whom proceedings are to be taken before the magistrate. At that stage the court only considers whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence affecting administration of justice. In M.S. Sheriff and Anr. vs. State of Madras and Ors. (AIR 1954 SC 397), a Constitution Bench of this Court cautioned that no expression on the guilt or innocence of the persons should be made by the court while passing an order under Section 340 of the Code. An exercise of the court at that stage is not for finding whether any offence was committed or who committed the same. The scope is confined to see whether the Court could then decide on the materials available that the matter requires inquiry by a criminal court and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have it inquired into. (Para 15)
Appellant who scored substantially in a land acquisition proceeding is now facing rough weather as he is arraigned in a criminal proceeding on account of certain documents he produced as evidence. The court which granted a quantum leap in awarding compensation to the land owners later found that they had used forged documents for inveigling such a bumper gain as compensation and hence the court ordered some of the claimants to face prosecution proceedings in a criminal court. The only point now canvassed by the appellant is that the court should have heard the appellant before ordering such prosecution. The said plea raised by the appellant before the High Court was repelled as per the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal by special leave.
(2). An area of 3.9 acres of land was acquired by the State Government for construction of a canal under Arunwati Project in 1985. The land acquisition officer awarded a total of Rs. 24,000/ as compensation for the entire land. As the owners were not satisfied with the said award they moved for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court (which is a civil court) on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties made a big leap by enhancing the compensation amount from Rupees twenty four thousand to Rupees ten lakhs thirty thousand, besides the other benefits such as solatium, additional compensation and interest as provided in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court passed the award granting the said enhancement on 23.4.1993. Appellant was one of the beneficiaries of the said award and the enhancement was made on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties including the appellant. Though the claimants expressed dissatisfaction even with such enhancement and moved the High Court for further enhancement the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by them in 1993.
(3). In 1995, some persons of the locality brought to the notice of the reference court that the claimants had wangled a whopping enhancement after playing chicanery on the court by producing forged copies of sale deeds for supporting their claim for enhancement. The documents marked by the reference court as Exts. 31, 32 and 35 were fabricated copies of sale deeds in which the extent of the lands sold had been shown as far less than the real area transferred as per the instruments of sale, according to those persons.
(4). The reference court conducted an inquiry on being told by the aforesaid applicants that the above mentioned documents are forged. The court got down the relevant records from the Sub- Registry for the purpose of examining the correctness of the aforesaid three documents and found that they were fabricated copies of the original sale deeds. The said court further found that appellant and one Rajkumar Anandrao Gulhane have committed offences affecting the administration of justice by using forged documents. The court then passed the following order:
``Therefore. it is expedient in the ends of justice on my part of file the complaint in writing against them before Judicial Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction to take appropriate and proper criminal action against them, as it appears that they have not only cheated the public at large and government but have misguided or tried to misguide my learned predecessor by preparing and producing false documentary evidence as well as by giving false oral evidence just to have a wrongful gain.
(5). The persons who moved the court for taking action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) by bringing the above facts to the notice of the reference court were not satisfied as they felt that the other persons who also secured the advantage of such enhancement were also to be proceeded against. So they filed an appeal before the District Court. On 12.8.1996 the District Judge concerned ordered that the complaint shall be filed against five more persons besides the
