26 May 2020


Supreme Court

Senior Manager (P & D), Riico Ltd. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.




Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC would be attracted only when offences enumerated therein committed with respect to document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court

Present appeal has been filed against judgment of High Court dismissing Petition which was filed by the Appellant questioning the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the Appellant. Instant appeal disclosed several stages of litigation arising out of First Information Report lodged by Appellant under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr., had held that, Sachida Nand Singh case has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.

Present is a case where letter dated 10th April, 1992 is claimed to be a forged letter not signed by Appellant. From the materials on record, it is clear that, said letter dated 10th April, 1992 was filed before the Court in Case No. 2/84. There is no case that, forgery was committed after letter was filed in the Court. Thus, provision under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC was not attracted. A perusal of the Final Report which was submitted by Inspector, it is clear that the Inspector after conducting an investigation ultimately concluded that, in view of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC, Police cannot investigate the matter. The Final Report is filed.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order as well as the Revisional Court has considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that, no prima facie case is made out against the Accused that he has committed any forgery or played any fraud in forging the document. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has also referred to the Report. The Revisional Court also after considering all the submissions of Appellant have dismissed the Revision on merits.

The order of the Revisional Court was challenged before the High Court and High Court also came to conclusion that, no evidence is available on record to suggest that letter dated 10th April, 1992 was prepared by Respondent No. 2. The High Court held that, no illegality can be found in the order of Revisional Court. Although, the Final Report was submitted on the ground relying on Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Code of CrPC but before submitting the report, investigation was conducted by the Inspector, and the materials collected during the investigation were all referred to in the Final Report. Holding that the Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC is not attracted in the present case, the Revisional Court vide its judgment has directed the Court below to pass an order in accordance with law on the basis of evidence available. Hence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate looked into the material on record and concluded that, there is no sufficient material for taking cognizance against the accused. High Court also took the same view, in which there is no infirmity.


Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. MANU/SC/0197/2005
: (2005) 4 SCC 370, Sachida Nand Singh MANU/SC/0077/1998
: (1998) 2 SCC 493

Tags : Cognizance Provision Applicability

Share :