| Headnote |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b) – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) – A case was registered against the appellant/accused no.1 u/ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) of the PC Act – Thereafter, the respondent- investigative agency conducted search at the appellant’s residence and found an amount of Rs.79,65,900/-, in addition to jewellery and property papers – Assets were found disproportionate to the appellant’s known sources of income – Another separate case was registered u/s. 13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) of the PC Act – During the course of investigation, accused no. 2 claimed that he had entered into an agreement to sale to purchase properties from accused no.3 and since he (accused no.2) was not available on the date of execution of the agreement, he had entrusted the amount of Rs. 80 lakhs to the accused no.1 – Since, the accused no.1 house was raided, the money was not paid and agreement to sale was not executed – Hence, accused no. 2 and 3 sought recovery of money – However, the respondent-investigation agency revealed that the market value fixed by the State Government of the said properties was much below Rs.80 lakhs – The license of the stamp vendor/accused no.4, through whom the stamp papers of sale deed were issued, was cancelled in the year 1992 and sale deed were issued in the year 2001 – So, the respondent-investigative agency alleged that the accused no.1 conspired with accused no.2-4 to fabricate false deed of agreement to sale for the purpose of being shielded from legal action in the disproportionate assets case – The charges were framed – The accused contended that complaint u/s.195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. was necessary for prosecuting the case u/s.193, IPC – The contention was rejected by the trial Court – The trial Court convicted theappellant/accused no.1 u/s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act as well as ss.120B and 193 of the IPC and accused no.2 and 3 were convicted u/s.120B and s.193 of the IPC – Before the High Court, the accused no. 2 and 3 reiterated that the requirements of s.195(1)(b)(i) and s.340, Cr.P.C. were not complied with prior to framing of charge u/s. 193 of IPC – The said contention was again rejected by the High Court – The High Court confirmed the trial Court’s finding that the accused had conspired to fabricate false evidence for shielding appellant/accused no.1 from prosecution in the disproportionate assets case – Whether s.195(1)(b)(i),Cr.P.C. bars lodging of case by the investigating agency u/s. 193, IPC, in respect of offence of giving false evidence which is committed at the stage of investigation, prior to production of such evidence before the Trial Court – Held: S. 195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. will not bar prosecution by the investigating agency for offence punishable u/ s.193, IPC, which is committed during the stage of investigation – This is provided that the investigating agency has lodged complaint or registered the case u/s. 193, IPC prior to commencement of proceedings and production of such evidence before the trial Court – In such circumstance, the same would not be considered an offence committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court for the purpose of s.195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. – Thus, appellants directed to surrender for serving out the rest of their sentence, if they are not already in custody. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b)(i) – Whether an offence u/s.193, IPC committed at the stage of investigation, prior to production of the false evidence before the trial Court by a person who is not yet party to proceedings before the Trial Court, is an offence “in relation to” a proceeding in any court u/s. 195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. – Held: The words “in relation to” u/s. 195(1)(b(i) appear to encompass situations wherein false evidence has been fabricated prior to being produced before a Court of law, for the purpose of being used in proceedings before the Court – The Construction of the words “in relation to” must be controlled by the overarching principle as stated in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai and Sachida Nanda Singh, which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah – That is, even if the offence is committed prior to giving of the fabricated evidence in the Court, it must have a direct or reasonably close nexus with the court proceedings.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b)(i) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.193 – Whether the words “stage of a judicial proceeding” under Explanation 2 to s.193, IPC can be equated with “proceeding in any court” u/s.195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. – Held: The purpose of s.195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C., there must be an intention on part of the alleged offender to directly mislead the Court into forming a certain opinion by commission of offence u/s.193, IPC – Though a criminal investigation is certainly a stage of a judicial proceeding insofar as it may culminate in issue of process and trial against the accused, it would not be a proceeding in relation to a certain Court u/s.195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. before the Court has even taken judicial notice of such investigation – The difference between a “stage” of a judicial proceeding and the judicial proceeding itself must be emphasized in this regard. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b)(i) and s.195(1)(b)(ii) – Difference between – Held: There is a pertinent difference in the wording of s.195(1)(b)(i) and s.195(1)(b)(ii) inasmuch as s.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 s.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 |
