Accident claims - Insurance law - future medical treatment be given due 90% disability as even not able to eat and not able to go toilet with out assistance of attended = injured in a motor accident - The appellant was 24 years of age- measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being - whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. - unable to even eat or to attend to a visit to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant.- the disability at 90 per cent. The disability is indeed total.; the loss of income, including future prospects, would be Rs. 18,14,400/-. In addition to this amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of pain, suffering and loss of amenities.; the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses (Rs. 98,908/-); for extra nourishment (Rs. 25,000/-) and for attendant’s expenses (Rs. 1 lakh) is maintained. ; allowed an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs towards future medical expenses ; The appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum ; The liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer, owner and driver jointly and severally which is affirmed. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from today and shall be paid over to the appellant upon proper identification.

1
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No 2217 OF 2018
[Arising out of SLP (C) No 7739 OF 2017
JAGDISH .....APPELLANT
Versus
MOHAN & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J
1 The appellant was injured in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs. 12,81,228/- for the injuries suffered by him. The High Court
enhanced the award of compensation by an amount of Rs.2,19,000/-. Interest of 7.5
per cent per annum has been awarded from the date of the filing of the claim. The
appellant seeks an enhancement of compensation.
2
2 The appellant was 24 years of age when the accident took place on 24
November 2011. The accident occurred at 4pm when the appellant and another
person were riding on a motor cycle. The appellant who was riding the motor cycle
at a moderate speed indicated to a dumper which was ahead of him to allow him to
pass. When the appellant was passing the vehicle, it swerved on the driver’s side
and hit the motor cycle of the appellant. The appellant was injured in the course of
the accident.
3 The nature of the injuries is evident from the following extract from the
judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kota.
“As for the claimant due to the injuries received by the claimant he
has suffered 90% permanent disability…
The claimant came to give evidence in the matter…
looking at both the hands of the claimant it was noted that…
the hands are not able to perform any function. It has also been
submitted on behalf of the claimant that the claimant himself is
unable to eat food or go to toilet for which he requires the
assistance of someone else as both his hands are unable to
perform any function as it has been stated in Exhibit 168. In such
situation if a person of labour class suffers from an injury due to
which 90% of both his hands are unable to perform any function
then in such situation the claimant would have same difficulty
which would be the permanent disability of his body. Therefore
relying on Exhibit 168 I hold that there has been loss of 90% of
earning ability of the claimant”.
4 The Tribunal found that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the
dumper and that the appellant was liable to be compensated for the injuries sustained
by him.
5 In computing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the
appellant was a carpenter and had claimed that he was in receipt of an income of
3
Rs. 6,000/- per month. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal took
the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 4,050/-. The appellant having been found
to suffer from 90 per cent disability, the loss of the future monthly income was
computed at Rs. 3645/-. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 and held that the
appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of future income of Rs. 7,87,320/-
(Rs. 3645 X 12 X 18). The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1.80 lakhs on account
of mental and physical hardship and agony, Rs. 90,000/- for loss of comfort, Rs.
25,000/- for expenses and Rs. 95,908/- on account of medical expenses. An amount
of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded for attendant charges. The Tribunal awarded a total
amount of Rs. 12,81,228/- as compensation on which interest was allowed at the rate
of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. No amount
was awarded towards expenses for future treatment.
6 In appeal, the High Court awarded an additional amount of Rs. 2,19,000/-. The
High Court directed that if the enhanced amount is not deposited within 8 weeks, it
would carry interest at 9 per cent per annum.
7 The appellant has sought an enhancement of compensation under the
following heads:
(i) The Tribunal ought to have, but did not award any amount towards loss of future
prospects. The appellant submits that in view of the recent judgment of the
Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi1
,
he would be entitled to be compensated for loss of future prospects even though
he is self-employed;

1
(2017) 13 SCALE 12
4
(ii) According to the appellant, the nature of the injuries suffered, resulting in a total
loss of the functionality of both the hands would require compensation to be
computed on the basis of a disability of 100 per cent and not 90 per cent; and
(iii) The income as claimed of Rs. 6,000/- per month should be the basis of
computation and not Rs. 4,050/- as allowed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the
High Court.
8 In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne
in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by
an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation
must cover among others, the following aspects:
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;
(ii) Loss of income including future income;
(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;
(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to
undertake in future; and
(v) Loss of expectation of life.
In Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd2
, this Court held:
“The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an
accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts
should always be made to award adequate compensation not only

2 2011 (12) SCALE 658
5
for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering
and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim’s
inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would
have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.”
In K Suresh v New India Assurance Company Ltd3
, this Court adverted to the
earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra v Randhir Singh4 and B Kothandapani v
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited5
. The Court held that
compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for
the first head relates to the impairment of a person’s capacity while the other relates
to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself.
In Govind Yadav v New India Insurance Company Limited6
, this Court adverted to
the earlier decisions in R D Hattangadi v Pest Control (India) (Pvt) Ltd.7
, Nizam’s
Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S Dhananka8
, Reshma Kumari v
Madam Mohan9
, Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Company
Limited10
, and Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar11 and held thus:
“18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar
Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay
Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts
in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the
victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or
temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent
disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate
compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but
also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life
and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the
disability caused due to the accident.” (Id at page 693)

3
(2012)12SCC274
4
(1990) 3 SCC 723
5
(2011) 6 SCC 420
6
(2011) 10 SCC 683
7
(1995) 1 SCC 551
8
(2009) 6 SCC 1
9
(2009) 13 SCC 422
10 (2010) 10 SCC 254
11 (2011) 1 SCC 343
6
These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi v MD Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation12 delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as
the learned Chief Justice then was).
9 Having regard to these principles, it would be now appropriate to assess the
case of the appellant for enhancement of compensation. The accident took place on
24 November 2011. The appellant was a skilled carpenter and self-employed. The
claim of the appellant that his earnings were Rs. 6,000/- per month cannot be
discarded. This claim cannot be regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a
realistic assessment of the situation on the date of the accident.
10 In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court
has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who
have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of
a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should
be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years.
Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs.
2400/- towards loss of future prospects.
11 In making the computation in the present case, the court must be mindful of
the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a
loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it
requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a complete

12 Civil Appeal No. 7750 of 2012, decided on 1 November 2012
7
deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing – at least in the facts of this case – can
restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt
of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should
not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it
does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the
trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse of
rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift
from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable
rights as intrinsic to human dignity.
The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat or to attend to a visit
to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In this background, it would be a
denial of justice to compute the disability at 90 per cent. The disability is indeed total.
Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In
the circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss
of income, including future prospects, would be Rs. 18,14,400/-. In addition to this
amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of
pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards
medical expenses (Rs. 98,908/-); for extra nourishment (Rs. 25,000/-) and for
attendant’s expenses (Rs. 1 lakh) is maintained. The Tribunal has declined to award
any amount towards future treatment. The appellant should be allowed an amount of
Rs. 3 lakhs towards future medical expenses. The appellant is thus awarded a total
sum of Rs. 25,38,308/- by way of compensation. The appellant would be entitled to
interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of the
8
filing of the claim petition. The liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the
Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer, owner and driver jointly and severally
which is affirmed. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period
of 6 weeks from today and shall be paid over to the appellant upon proper
identification.
12 The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
............................................CJI
 [DIPAK MISRA]
 …….........................................J
 [A M KHANWILKAR]
 ….............................................J
 [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD]
New Delhi
March 6, 2018

On 29.11.2007, the appellant filed an application under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. making allegations against the respondent, who was counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2004 that he committed offence in verifying and forging thumb impression of dead appellant namely Shaba Manju Velip. = It is further to be noted that the execution application, which was filed by the 18 decree holder was also withdrawn. It is further relevant to notice that the appeal, which was filed by judgment debtor was withdrawn by judgment debtor, which in no manner had impaired the interest of the appellant, who was legal heir of decree holder. It is also on the record that legal heirs of the decree holders have also withdrawn their execution application, which has attained finality. None of the appellants, who had filed Appeal No.91 of 2004 before the High Court has initiated any proceeding against the present respondent N.M. Dessai, who was their advocate. It is only the appellant, who was respondent in Appeal No.91 of 2004 has filed a complaint under Section 195. The High Court having taken into consideration entire facts and circumstances have rightly come to the conclusion that present is not a case where any complaint could have been proceeded under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 359 OF 2018
(Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1395 of 2010)
VISHNU CHANDRU GAONKAR … APPELLANT
VERSUS
N.M. DESSAI … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
This appeal has been filed questioning the
judgment and order dated 06.10.2009 of the High
Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Appeal No. 22
of 2009 by which judgment, the criminal appeal
filed by the respondent Shri Narayan M. Dessai
has been allowed setting aside the order of
District & Sessions Judge dated 31.07.2008
directing for filing a complaint under Section
195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. 
2
2. The facts which are necessary to be noted
for deciding this appeal are:-
A regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 1993 was filed
by two plaintiffs namely Laximan Rama
Gaonkar and Janu Narayan Gaonkar impleading
two defendants namely Kusta Naga Gaonkar and
Shri Suresh Kust Gaonkar. The appellant in
this appeal is legal heir of original
plaintiff No. 2, Janu Narayan Gaonkar. The
Suit No. 4 of 1993 was decreed by judgment
and decree dated 07.12.2001. An application
for execution of decree was filed by the
legal heirs of the plaintiffs on 07.12.2003.
Legal heirs of the original defendants filed
a Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2004 questioning
the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2001.
One of the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 91
of 2004 namely Shaba Manju Velip (one of the
legal heirs of original defendants Kusta
Naga Gaonkar) died on 02.03.2005. No
application to bring his legal heirs on
3
record was filed by the appellants. The
application to withdraw execution case No. 1
of 2003 filed for execution of the decree in
Civil Suit No. 4 of 1993 was filed by the
plaintiff’s advocate on 20.06.2006. The
application for withdrawal of Civil Appeal
No. 91 of 2004 was filed on 18.07.2006,
which was allowed on 18.07.2006 itself. The
Execution Case No. 01 of 2003 was also
allowed to be withdrawn on 21.07.2006. On
29.11.2007, the appellant filed an
application under Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. making allegations against the
respondent, who was counsel for the
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2004
that he committed offence in verifying and
forging thumb impression of dead appellant
namely Shaba Manju Velip. By order dated
31.07.2008, learned District & Sessions
Judge found that it is a fit case for
inquiry under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and
4
directed for inquiry and registering a
complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(ii).
Respondent preferred an appeal before the
High Court against the order of District &
Sessions Judge dated 31.07.2008. The High
Court vide its impugned judgment allowed the
appeal and quashed the order of the District
Judge dated 31.07.2008 as well as the
complaint filed pursuant thereto. Aggrieved
against the judgment of the High Court, the
appellant has filed this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the High Court relying on the Three Judge
Bench judgment of this Court in Sachida Nand
Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (1998) 2
SCC 493, which has been approved by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh
Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.,
(2005) 4 SCC 370, has allowed the appeal filed
by the respondent whereas the above judgments of
this Court, wherein reference was made to
5
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., which were not
applicable in the facts of the present case,
since allegations made in the complaint filed by
the appellant were referable to Section 195(1)
(b)(i). It is submitted that the District &
Session Judge has rightly considered all facts
and circumstances and directed for filing of
complaint against the respondents under Section
195(1)(b). No one has appeared on behalf of the
respondent in spite of service.
4. We have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
5. It is useful to extract Section 195(1) of
Cr.P.C., which is to the following effect:-
“195. Prosecution for contempt of
lawful authority of public servants,
for offences against public justice
and for offences relating to documents
given in evidence. - (1) No
Court shall take cognizance(a)
(i) of any offence punishable under
sections 172 to 188 (both in-
6
clusive) of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860 ), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt
to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy
to commit such offence,
except on the complaint in writing
of the public servant concerned
or of some other public
servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under
any of the following sections
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860 ), namely, sections 193 to
196 (both inclusive), 199, 200,
205 to 211 (both inclusive) and
228, when such offence is alleged
to have been committed in, or in
relation to, any proceeding in
any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in
section 463, or punishable under
section 471, section 475 or section
476, of the said Code, when
such offence is alleged to have
been committed in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence
in a proceeding in any
Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy
to commit, or attempt to commit,
or the abetment of, any offence
specified in sub-clause (i) or
sub- clause (ii), 
7
[except on the complaint in writing
of that Court, or by such officer
of the Court as that Court
may authorize in writing in this
behalf, or of some other Court to
which that Court is subordinate].
……………………………………………”
6. From the facts which are on the record,
there is no dispute that the Appeal No. 91 of
2004 was filed by several appellants, out of
which one of the appellants was Shaba Manju
Velip, who died on 02.03.2005. The application
for withdrawal of the appeal was filed on
18.07.2006. It is further to be noted that one
Vimal Shaba Velip, who was one of the
respondents before the High Court, took it upon
herself to say that the thumb impression, which
was put as of Shaba Manju Velip was put by her,
since her husband Shaba Manju Velip also used to
sign along with her, in good faith, she put her
thumb impression. The respondent N.M. Dessai
came with the case that he having been informed
that talks of settlement amongst the Gaonkars is
going on and they are intending to withdraw the
8
execution application filed by them. He, as per
instructions of his client, drafted and handed
over the application for withdrawing the Appeal
No. 91 of 2004 to one Suresh K. Gaonkar to
obtain the signatures of the remaining
respondents. He further came with the case that
he was not aware of death of Shaba Manju Velip
or alleged forged thumb impression of Shaba
Manju Velip on the application.
7. The facts fairly indicate that the
application when it was presented in the Court
in Appeal No. 91 of 2004 for withdrawal of the
appeal, signatures/thumb impressions of the
appellants were already obtained on the said
application, which was handed over to the
respondent in this appeal for filing in the
Court. On the same date, i.e., 18.07.2006, the
Court allowed the application permitting
withdrawal of the appeal.
8. A Criminal Misc. Application No. 95 of 2007
9
for initiating action under Section 195(1)(b)
(ii) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant after
the said withdrawal of the appeal. Copy of the
Application No. 95 of 2007 has been filed as
Annexure P-4. It is useful to quote prayer in
the application, which is to the following
effect:-
“The applicant therefore prays that
in view of above an enquiry may be
conducted and the written complaint
be made as per the provision
contemplated under Section 195(1)(b)
(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code in
order to prosecute and take further
action against the respondents above
as per the provision of law.”
9. The application was allowed by the District
Judge vide order dated 31.07.2008 where the
District Judge had directed for inquiry to be
conducted in terms of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of
Cr.P.C., it is useful to quote Paras 18 and 19
of the order of the District Judge, which is to
the following effect:-
“18. Though the respondent No.9 has
canvassed that he was totally
unconnected with any of such
transaction, such a plea would not
10
lie in his mouth when he was
representing the said appellants and
one of whom was Shaba, since deceased
and instrumental in seeking the
withdrawal of the appeal also at his
instance as late as 18.7.2006 despite
Shaba being dead on that day.
Therefore, on the basis of the
material on record, it is apparent
that an offence of forgery under
Section 463 I.P.C. has allegedly been
committed to withdraw the appeal misrepresenting
the deceased as living
and the execution of the Sale Deeds
in respect of the very same property
on the following day and a day
thereafter. The application so filed
in Court would be “a document” in the
context of the Evidence Act and
evidence.
19. I am therefore satisfied that
this is a fit case where inquiry is
required to be conducted in terms of
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. and
initiate complaint against the
respondents for appropriate action as
per law.”
10. The two judgments of this Court, which has
already been noticed by the High Court needs
detailed reference.
11. A Three Judge Bench of this Court in
Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar &
11
Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493 had occasion to consider
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and Section 340(1) Cr.P.C.
Interpreting Section 195(1)(b)(ii), following
was laid down in Paras 8, 11 and 23:-
“8. That apart it is difficult to interpret
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) as containing
a bar against initiation of
prosecution proceedings merely because
the document concerned was produced
in a court albeit the act of
forgery was perpetrated prior to its
production in the Court. Any such
construction is likely to ensue unsavoury
consequences. For instance,
if rank forgery of a valuable document
is detected and the forgerer is
sure that he would imminently be embroiled
in prosecution proceedings he
can simply get that document produced
in any long-drawn litigation which
was either instituted by himself or
somebody else who can be influenced
by him and thereby pre-empt the prosecution
for the entire long period of
pendency of that litigation. It is a
settled proposition that if the language
of a legislation is capable of
more than one interpretation, the one
which is capable of causing mischievous
consequences should be
averted. Quoting from Gill v. Donald
Humberstone & Co. Ltd.5 Maxwell has
stated in his treatise (Interpretation
of Statutes, 12th Edn., p. 105)
that “if the language is capable of
more than one interpretation we ought
to discard the more natural meaning
12
if it leads to unreasonable result
and adopt that interpretation which
leads to a reasonably practicable result”.
The clause which we are now
considering contains enough indication
to show that the more natural
meaning is that which leans in favour
of a strict construction, and hence
the aforesaid observation is eminently
applicable here.
11. The scope of the preliminary enquiry
envisaged in Section 340(1) of
the Code is to ascertain whether any
offence affecting administration of
justice has been committed in respect
of a document produced in court or
given in evidence in a proceeding in
that Court. In other words, the offence
should have been committed during
the time when the document was in
custodia legis.
23. The sequitur of the above discussion
is that the bar contained in
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is
not applicable to a case where
forgery of the document was committed
before the document was produced in a
court. Accordingly we dismiss this
appeal.”
12. It is also relevant to note that
observations have been made by this Court that
forgery of a document if committed far outside
the precincts of the Court and long before its
13
production in the Court, the same cannot be
treated as one affecting administration of
justice. In Para 12, following has been held:-
“12. It would be a strained thinking
that any offence involving forgery of
a document if committed far outside
the precincts of the Court and long
before its production in the Court,
could also be treated as one affecting
administration of justice merely
because that document later reached
the court records.”
13. A contrary earlier view having expressed
by another Three Judge Bench in Surjit Singh &
Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 533, being
not in accord with the view expressed by this
Court in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. (supra), the same was referred to a
Constitution Bench for resolving the conflict.
The Constitution Bench vide its judgment in
Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah &
Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370 has resolved conflict and
approved three Judge Bench judgment in Sachida
Nand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
(supra). In Para 33, following was laid down:-
14
“33. In view of the discussion made
above, we are of the opinion that
Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly
decided and the view taken therein is
the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)
(ii) 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
i.e. during the time when the document
was in custodia legis.”
14. Learned counsel for the appellant before
us has pressed only one submission, i.e., the
judgment of Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh
Marwah (supra) was a case, which interpreted
Section 195(1)(b)(ii), to which there cannot be
any dispute but present was a case of offence
under Section 195(1)(b)(i). Hence the
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court was
not applicable and the High Court committed
error in relying on the Constitution Bench
Judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra).
15. The submission which has been raised by
learned counsel for the appellant before us has
15
to be stated to be rejected due to the reason
that before the Session Court as well as before
the High Court, the appellant has alleged an
offence under Section 195(1)(b)(ii). A copy of
the Application No. 95 of 2007 has been annexed
as Annexure P-4. The prayer made therein as
extracted above clearly prays for complaint to
be made as per the provisions contemplated under
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. Even the order
of District Judge, which was the basis in favour
of the appellant on 31.07.2008 has also directed
for inquiry and initiating complaint in terms of
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C., which has also
been extracted above for ready reference. There
being specific case of the appellant in his
complaint as well as in order passed by the
District Judge in his favour, it is not open for
the appellant now to turn round and claim that
allegations are covered under Section 195(1)(b)
(i). There is one more reason due to which the
above submission cannot be accepted. The
16
Constitution Bench elaborately noticing the
statutory scheme under Section 195 has held that
where offences has already been committed
earlier and later on the document is produced or
given in the evidence in Court, the same is
neither covered under Clauses (a), (b)(i) or (b)
(ii). In Para 10, Constitution Bench made
following observations:-
“10. The scheme of the statutory provision
may now be examined. Broadly, Section
195 CrPC deals with three distinct
categories of offences which have been
described in clauses (a), (b)(i) and
(b)(ii) and they relate to (1) contempt
of lawful authority of public servants,
(2) offences against public justice,
and (3) offences relating to documents
given in evidence. Clause (a) deals
with offences punishable under Sections
172 to 188 IPC which occur in Chapter X
IPC and the heading of the Chapter is —
“Of Contempts of the Lawful Authority
of Public Servants”. These are offences
which directly affect the functioning
of or discharge of lawful duties of a
public servant. Clause (b)(i) refers to
offences in Chapter XI IPC which is
headed as — “Of False Evidence and Offences
Against Public Justice”. The offences
mentioned in this clause clearly
relate to giving or fabricating false
evidence or making a false declaration
in any judicial proceeding or before a
court of justice or before a public
17
servant who is bound or authorised by
law to receive such declaration, and
also to some other offences which have
a direct correlation with the proceedings
in a court of justice (Sections
205 and 211 IPC). This being the scheme
of two provisions or clauses of Section
195 viz. that the offence should be
such which has direct bearing or affects
the functioning or discharge of
lawful duties of a public servant or
has a direct correlation with the proceedings
in a court of justice, the expression
“when such offence is alleged
to have been committed in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence
in a proceeding in any court” occurring
in clause (b)(ii) should normally mean
commission of such an offence after the
document has actually been produced or
given in evidence in the court. The
situation or contingency where an offence
as enumerated in this clause has
already been committed earlier and
later on the document is produced or is
given in evidence in court, does not
appear to be in tune with clauses (a)
(i) and (b)(i) and consequently with
the scheme of Section 195 CrPC. This
indicates that clause (b)(ii) contemplates
a situation where the offences
enumerated therein are committed with
respect to a document subsequent to its
production or giving in evidence in a
proceeding in any court.”
16. It is further to be noted that the
execution application, which was filed by the
18
decree holder was also withdrawn. It is further
relevant to notice that the appeal, which was
filed by judgment debtor was withdrawn by
judgment debtor, which in no manner had impaired
the interest of the appellant, who was legal
heir of decree holder. It is also on the record
that legal heirs of the decree holders have also
withdrawn their execution application, which has
attained finality. None of the appellants, who
had filed Appeal No.91 of 2004 before the High
Court has initiated any proceeding against the
present respondent N.M. Dessai, who was their
advocate. It is only the appellant, who was
respondent in Appeal No.91 of 2004 has filed a
complaint under Section 195. The High Court
having taken into consideration entire facts and
circumstances have rightly come to the
conclusion that present is not a case where any
complaint could have been proceeded under
Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. 
19
17. We thus fully endorse the view of the High
Court that present is not a case where any
complaint could have been proceeded with under
Section 195(1)(b)(ii). We thus do not find any
merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
..........................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
..........................J.
NEW DELHI, ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
MARCH 06, 2018.

corporate law = Iron Ore - criminal case was registered for illegal storage of iron ore by violating sec.2[7][b][iv]. 62. 80 of Karnataka forest Act - Seizes - Iron Ore in another case The XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CCH-34) after considering the application passed an order on 08.05.2015 allowing the application under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. permitting the applicant/State to dispose off the seized iron ore through e-tender on certain terms and conditions as enumerated in the order. -writ to High court against the order - High court committed wrong - Apex court held that seizure of the iron ore was not in case Crime No. 2/2014 in which final report has been accepted on 15.12.2015 rather seizure of the iron ore was in different proceeding in which proceeding Order dated 08.05.2015 was passed. When release of iron ore on an application filed by the State under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. was in different proceeding, there was no effect or consequence of acceptance of the final report vide Order dated 15.12.2015 in case Crime No. 2/2014 and the High Court committed error in allowing the Writ Petition on the strength of the final report accepted on 15.12.2015. - order and judgment of the High Court is wholly unsustainable and is hereby set aside. We, however, observe that it shall be open for the respondent to file an appropriate application before the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CCH-34), for release of seized iron ore by establishing its existence and its ownership right over the same, which may be considered by Jurisdictional Criminal Court in accordance with law.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 348-356 OF 2018
(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 2398 of 2018)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S VEDANTA LIMITED (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS SESA STERLITE LIMITED) & ORS … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment and order of Karnataka High Court dated
04.07.2017 in Writ Petition No. 18941/2016 and Writ
Petition Nos. 19328-19335/2016(GM-MM-S). High Court
2
vide its judgment dated 04.07.2017 has allowed the
Writ Petitions directing for release of the iron ore
in favour of writ petitioners (respondent herein).
3. The brief facts necessary to be noted for
deciding this appeal are:
A First Information Report No. 17/2009-10 dated
15.03.2010 was registered for illegal storage of iron
ore by violating Sections 2(7)(b)(iv), 62, 80 of the
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rules 143, 162 of the
Karnataka Forests Rules, 1969. Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ankola permitted for further inquiry by
including Section 24(e) of Karnataka Forest Act,
1963. On 20.03.2010 about 5 Lakhs Metric Tonnes of
illegally stocked iron ore has been seized on “as-iswhere-is-basis”
and seizure report has been submitted
to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankola who
permitted to retain the same until further orders.
4. Another case registered was CBI Crime No. RC
17(A)/2012. Chargesheets were filed after
investigation in Special C.C. No. 268/2013, Special
C.C. No. 11/2014, Special C.C. No. 14/2014, Special
3
C.C. No. 15/2014, Special C.C. No. 36/2014, Special
C.C. No. 37/2014, Special C.C. No. 38/2014, Special
C.C. No. 53/2014, Special C.C. No. 54/2014. The State
filed an application under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. in
the aforesaid cases before the XXXII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Bangalore (CCH-34), seeking permission to
dispose off 56 heaps of iron ore lying at the
Belekeri Port approximately weighing 2,72,713.347
Metric Tonnes by e-tender.
5. Notices were published in the newspapers inviting
the filing of application for the interim disposal of
seized 56 heaps of iron ore at Belekeri Port by Dy.
Conservator of Forests, Karwar on 29.03.2015. The
XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CCH-34) after
considering the application passed an order on
08.05.2015 allowing the application under Section
451/457 Cr.P.C. permitting the applicant/State to
dispose off the seized iron ore through e-tender on
certain terms and conditions as enumerated in the
order. 
4
6. Against Order passed on 08.05.2015, Writ Petition
No. 18941/2016 and Writ Petition Nos. 19328-
19335/2016(GM-MM-S) were filed by the respondents in
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. In the Writ
Petition following prayers were made:
“ PRAYER
Wherefore, for the reasons and
circumstances stated to hereinabove, it
is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:
(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any
other appropriate Writ or Order or
direction setting aside the Order dated
08.05.2015 passed by the Court XXXII
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge &
Special Judge for CBI Cases in Bangalore
(CCH 34) in Spl. C.C. Nos. 268/2013, 11,
14, 15, 36, 37, 38, 53 & 54 of 2014 vide
Annexure – A & all further consequential
proceedings thereto, only in so far as
the petitioner is concerned, in the
interest of justice and equity.
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ or Order or
Direction, directing the 2nd,3rd, 4th & 5th
Respondents to consider the
representation dated 04.02.2016,
08.02.2016 & 24.02.2016 submitted by the
petitioner vide Annexure –‘P’,’P1’ &
‘P2’ and permit the petitioner to remove
and transport the entire quantity of
5
approximately 34.544 Metric Tonnes of
iron ore from Belekere Port premises to
the Pig Iron Plant of the petitioner at
Amona in State of Goa by endorsing the
Mineral Dispatch Permits & Forest
Transit Passes & without insisting on
any further payment of Royalty, in the
interest of justice and equity.
(iii) Issue such other appropriate Writ
or Order or Direction as deemed fit
under the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice and
equity.”
7. The State filed an objection in the Writ
Petitions opposing the prayers made in the Writ
Petitions. The High Court vide its judgment and order
dated 04.07.2017 allowed the Writ Petitions. The
State aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has
come up in this appeal.
8. We have heard Shri B.P.S. Patil learned Senior
Advocate for the appellant and Shri Dhruv Mehta,
Advocate for the respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of
the appeal contends that the High court committed
error in allowing the Writ Petitions and directing
release of the iron ore in favour of the writ
6
petitioner. It is contended that the basis of the
judgment of the High Court is the final report
accepted by learned CBI Judge vide Order dated
15.12.2015 which has nothing to do with the
proceeding in which, an Order was passed by Special
Judge CBI on 08.05.2015. It is contended that the
High Court on wrong premise has allowed the Writ
Petitions. It is submitted that the writ petitioners
themselves have filed an application in the Special
C.C. Nos. 268/2013, 11, 14, 15, 36, 37, 38, 53 & 54
of 2014 under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. dated
08.03.2016, praying for directing the release in
favour of the applicant company herein entire
quantity of about 34544 Metric Tonnes of iron ore,
belonging to the applicant company seized on
20.03.2010, which application was subsequently,
withdrawn.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits
that Crime No. 2/2014 dated 11.07.2014 in which final
report was submitted and accepted by XXXII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for
Prevention of Corruption Act at Bangalore City was a
7
case which was registered by Special Investigation
Team of Karnataka Lokayukta, was altogether a
different case, unconcerned with proceeding under
which an application under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C.
has been allowed.
11. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent
refuting the submission of the Senior Counsel for the
appellant contends that the investigations were
carried out by the CBI in pursuance of the directions
passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.
562/2009 and under the orders of this Court Special
Investigation Team, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore
carried on investigations and registered a case with
Karnataka Lokayukta SIT Police Station, being Crime
No. 2/2014 in which proceeding after thorough
investigation, a final report dated 08.10.2015 was
submitted by SIT, which was accepted by the Court on
15.12.2015. No offence having been found proved
against the respondent, High Court has rightly
directed for release of iron ore seized in favour of
the respondent. Respondent’s claim for release of
iron ore is confined to the quantity of about 34544
8
Metric Tonnes of iron ore belonging to the respondent
company that has been seized on 20.03.2010 and lying
at the plot allotted to applicant-company by Shree
Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt. Ltd in Belekeri Port Area.
He submitted that the claim of above iron ore is
different from that seized and pending in case No.
189/2010.
12. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
13. High Court in the impugned judgment has based its
decision of allowing the Writ Petition and directing
the release of the iron ore in favour of the
respondent on the final report being accepted by the
learned CBI Judge by Order dated 15.12.2015. High
court has further noticed that this Court directed on
07.09.2012 to CBI to investigate into illegally
stocked iron ore in pursuance of which direction, SIT
was constituted and final report was submitted.
Paragraphs 10 and 15 of the judgment of the High
court are the entire consideration of the High Court
for allowing the Writ Petition. It is useful to
9
extract the Paragraphs 8 to 15 of the judgment which
is to the following effect:
“8. Accordingly, a Special
Investigation Team (SIT, for short) was
appointed by the State. They submitted a
final report, which is in favour of the
writ petitioner. The final report has
been accepted by the learned CBI Judge
by an order dated December 15, 2015.
9. Mr. K. N. Phanindra, learned
advocate, seeks a direction for release
of the materials in favour of his
client.
10. Mr. V. G. Bhanuprakash, learned
additional government advocate, submits
that a case of theft is pending and,
therefore, the seized materials could
not be released in favour of the
petitioner.
11. In the wake of the final report
being submitted by the SIT, we do not
find any impediment to release the iron
ore in favour of the petitioner. An
inventory has to be prepared and,
thereafter, the iron ore shall be
released in favour of the writ
petitioner, immediately. The entire
process must be completed by four weeks.
12. The writ petitions are, therefore,
allowed.
10
13. Mr. Phanindra, at this stage,
expresses an apprehension that the
authorities may claim royalty.
14. When the material is in the port
area, it is presumed that royalty has,
already, been paid, otherwise transport
permit would not have been granted.
Therefore, his apprehension is
unfounded.
15. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
 JUDGE”
14. The investigation which was carried out by SIT
was registered as Crime No. 2/2014. The respondent in
his compilation has filed a notice issued under
Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the Managing Director/Director
of M/s SESA Goa Limited, presently, M/s Vedanta
Limited (respondent). Notice dated 21.08.2014 refers
to the Order of this Court and registration of Crime
No. and it is useful to extract the opening paragraph
of the notice issued to the respondent dated
21.08.2014:
11
“ KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
Special Investigation Team
No. SP2/CR/02/2014/SIT/KLA/03 DATE: 21.08.2014
POLICE NOTICE
 (U/S 91 Cr.P.C.)
Special Investigation Team, Karnataka,
Lokayukta, Bangalore, is investigating
the cases of illegal mining of Iron ore
in Karnataka State on the orders of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court (Writ Application
No. 562/2009 IA 189 dated 16.09.2013)
and that of the Govt. of Karnataka. In
this regard a case is registered against
your company in KLA SIT Police Station
Cr. No. 02/2014 u/s 379, 420 r/w
120(b)IPC & 13(2), r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act &
21, 23 r/w 4(1)(a) MMRD Act 1957.
In this connection, you are requested to
direct a competent official conversant
with the activities/transactions of your
company (M/s. Mineral Enterprises
Limited No. 49,3rd Floor Khanija Bhavana,
Race Course Road,) to appear before the
undersigned at 10.30 hrs on 30.8.2014 at
the office of Special Investigation
Team, ATIC Building, University of
Veterinary Science, Hebbal, Bangalore
along with the following original
documents/data. The said official may
also carry soft copy of the
data/tables/charts of the information as
mentioned below.
 .............. ”
15. It was in the aforesaid proceeding that final
report was submitted on
12
08.10.2015. The respondent has filed a copy of the
order sheet of XXXII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of
Corruption Act at Bangalore City in Crime No. 2/2014
where filing of the final report is noticed and Court
also directed for issue notice to the complainant
returnable by 15.12.2015. On 15.12.2015, the Court in
Crime No. 2/2014 passed the following order:
“Complainant by name Sri Manjunatha
Annigeri, Superintendent of police
attached Special Investigation Team,
Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru is
present and submits that he has gone
through the records which disclosed that
no case is made out against all the
accused at the conclusion of
investigation. He submits that he has no
objection to accept the ‘B’ report.
I have gone through the records. It
is seen that according to the
Investigating Officer, there is no
convincing evidence to arrive at
conclusion that allegations against all
the accused are made out. After having
gone through the ‘B’ report I find that
there are no grounds to proceed further
against all the accused and accordingly
‘B’ report is accepted.
(V. G. BOPAIAH)
 XXIII ACC and Spl. Judge,
Bangalore City.”
13
16. From the above, it is clear that the final Report
which was accepted on 15.12.2015, was final report in
case Crime No. 2/2014 which was registered after the
investigation by SIT in pursuance of order of this
Court passed in Writ Petition No. 562 of 2009 and in
the above case, no offence was found against the
respondent.
17. The Order dated 08.05.2015 was passed allowing
the application under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. of the
State in Special C.C. No. 268/2013 and C.C. No. 11,
14, 15, 36, 37, 38, 53 & 54 of 2014 which is mentioned
in the operative portion of the order itself. It is
useful to extract the operative portion of the Order
dated 08.05.2015 which is to the following effect:
 “ ORDER
The Application filed by the State
Government U/ss. 451/457 of Cr.P.C., are
allowed permitting the Applicant/State to
dispose off the seized iron ore through
e-tender with the following terms and
conditions:
1.The auction of the property shall be
through e-tender under the supervision
of the ‘Monitoring committee’
14
constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
2.The e-tender auction shall be conducted
by involving the CBI Authorities and
under intimation to the Lokayukta
Department.
3.The e-tender auction shall be conducted
only after measurement of the quality
and quantity of each of the 56 iron ore
heaps separately through mines and
Geology Department.
4.The e-auction shall be conducted after
taking samples of each of the 56 iron
ore heaps separately for which
Panchanama shall be drawn.
5.The e-auction process is over the
disposal off the iron ore be covered by
videography.
6.The auction amount shall be deposited
immediately with the Court in Spl. CC.
No. 268/2013 and a copy of the document
for having deposited the amount be kept
in connected cases.
7.The DMG shall keep records of the exact
quantity of iron ore transported by the
successful bidder of the property.
The Original of the Order be kept in
Spl. CC. No. 268/13 and a copy thereof be
kept in Spl. CC. Nos. 11/14, 14/14,
15/14, 36/14, 37/14, 38/14, 53/14 &
54/14.
15
(Directed to the Judgment Writer,
transcribed by the corrected and then
signed and pronounced by me in the open
court on this 8th day of May 2015),
Sd/-08/05
(Pradeep S. Balikal)
XXXII Addl. City
Civil and Sessions
Judge and Spl. Judge
for CBI Cases,
Bangalore”
18. From the above, it is clear that Order dated
08.05.2015 was passed in different proceedings which
proceedings commenced by registration of FIR dated
15.03.2010, Ankola Police Station Crime No. 189/2010.
After investigation by CID/CBI chargesheets were
filed, which were the cases as referred above. Iron
ore which was directed to be released by Order dated
08.05.2015 was iron ore seized on 20.03.2010. In the
additional documents filed by the appellant, IA filed
on behalf of the respondent under Section 451/457
Cr.P.C. dated 08.03.2016 has been brought on record.
It is useful to extract the prayer made in the
application of the respondent, which is to the
following effect:
16
“ PRAYER
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to allow the above
application and direct the release in
favour of the applicant company herein,
of about 34,544 MT of Iron Ore belonging
to the applicant company that has been
seized on 20.03.2010 and is lying at the
plot allotted to applicant company by
Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Private
Limited in Belekeri Port area, in the
interest of justice & equity.
Place: Bangalore
Date 08.03.2016
Applicant
[Anand Prakash Dubey, Advocate for Applicant
Head-Finance, (K.N. Phanindra)”
Iron Ore Karnataka]
19. It is, thus, clear that seizure of the iron ore was
not in case Crime No. 2/2014 in which final report has
been accepted on 15.12.2015 rather seizure of the iron
ore was in different proceeding in which proceeding
Order dated 08.05.2015 was passed. When release of iron
ore on an application filed by the State under Section
451/457 Cr.P.C. was in different proceeding, there was
no effect or consequence of acceptance of the final
report vide Order dated 15.12.2015 in case Crime No.
17
2/2014 and the High Court committed error in allowing
the Writ Petition on the strength of the final report
accepted on 15.12.2015. We have already extracted the
entire consideration of the High Court while allowing
the Writ Petition from paragraphs 8 to 15 of the
judgment. High Court while allowing the Writ Petition
had only relied on acceptance of the final report by CBI
Judge dated 15.12.2015 which as has been noted above,
was not relevant with regard to Order dated 08.05.2015
passed by the trial court.
20. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has also
brought on record subsequent judgment of the High Court
where High Court in Writ Petition filed against the same
Order dated 08.05.2015 by another writ petitioner has
disposed off the Writ Petition granting liberty to that
Writ Petitioner to approach Jurisdictional Criminal
Court for release of the seized iron ore by establishing
its existence and ownership rights. Reference has been
made to the Order of the Karnataka High Court dated
20.11.2017 in Writ Petition Nos. 29527-29531 of 2017 and
Writ Petition Nos. 29881-29884 of 2017 filed as Annexure
P-11.
18
21. In result of foregoing discussion, we are of the
view that order and judgment of the High Court is wholly
unsustainable and is hereby set aside. We, however,
observe that it shall be open for the respondent to file
an appropriate application before the XXXII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Bangalore (CCH-34), for release of seized iron
ore by establishing its existence and its ownership
right over the same, which may be considered by
Jurisdictional Criminal Court in accordance with law.
The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
..........................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
..........................J.
NEW DELHI, ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
March 6, 2018.

Sri . S. Rama Krishna Rao

                                   Sri . S. Rama Krishna Rao
my dear brother in law
may god rest your soul with great peace and tranquility
smiles of birth  
smells of death never touched your soul
sky knows no boundaries 
you knows no barriers over come your crescent smiles

Let us pray the god to bless his soul to rest in  great peace and tranquility 

Private complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,120B, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity] and under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 = The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gwalior, by Order dated 21.04.2012, dismissed the aforesaid criminal complaint on the footing that there was no sufficient proof on record provided by the appellant/complainant to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the dispute between the parties had trappings of civil nature.- in appeal Session court remand the case for fresh consideration - High court dismissed the complaint "...In legal parlance cognizance is taking judicial notice by the court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause or matter judicially"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2018
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6900 of 2014)
RAJENDRA RAJORIYA … APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
JAGAT NARAIN THAPAK AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENT (S)
 JUDGMENT
 N. V. RAMANA, J.
1.Leave granted.

2. In this criminal appeal the judgment dated
08.07.2014, passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, bench at Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.
104/2013 is impugned.
3. Appellant herein filed a complaint before the
jurisdictional police station under Sections 420, 467,
1
Reportable
468, 471,120B, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
[hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity] and under
Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the allegations
that one Smt. Vidhyabai and others sold the disputed
land to respondent no. 1 and got the appellant’s
property mutated by committing fraud and forgery. It
was further alleged that the respondents had
threatened the appellant with dire consequence and
swore at them with filthy language intended to
belittle his caste/tribe. It may be noted that the
concerned police station did not take any action on
the aforesaid complaint.
4. Aggrieved by the inaction of the police, the
appellant approached the Jurisdictional Magistrate,
Gwalior, with the same set of facts under Section 200
of Cr.P.C.
2
5. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gwalior, by
Order dated 21.04.2012, dismissed the aforesaid
criminal complaint on the footing that there was no
sufficient proof on record provided by the
appellant/complainant to prove that he belongs to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the dispute
between the parties had trappings of civil nature.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal of criminal
complaint, appellant approached Addl. District and
Sessions Judge [hereinafter referred as ‘Sessions
Court’ for brevity] in Criminal Revision No.
242/2012. The Sessions Court, by the order dated
07.12.2012, held that the complainant belonged to
Jatav community which is a Scheduled Caste.
Further the Sessions Court observed that the facts
narrated portray that the respondent no. 1 in
conspiracy with others had transferred the land
belonging to the appellant in an illegal manner.
3
Thereafter, concluded that the lower court did not
appreciate the facts as well as the law in a proper
manner and remanded the case in the following
manner: -
This revision is allowed and order dated
21.04.2012 passed by Court is set
aside and case is remanded back with
a direction that if necessary after a
further enquiry keeping in view the
 findings given in this order , proper
order be passed with regard to
registration of complaint and to
summon the respondents and for
that directed the parties to remain
present before the Court below on
20.12.2012.
(Emphasis supplied)
7. On remand of the case, Judicial Magistrate, vide
order dated 23.01.2013, while taking cognizance of
the aforesaid offences under Section 420, 467, 471,
120-B of IPC and 3(1)(4) of SC/ST Act, registered the
complaint as Criminal Case No. 1576/2013 and on
23-02-2013, learned Magistrate noted as under4
...the court is required to prima facie
decide question of initiating proceeding
arises or not. It is pertinent that in
this case learned Revisional Court has
 prima facie already found sufficient
ground for initiating proceeding
against non-applicants.
(emphasis supplied)
8. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the remand order
dated 07.12.2012 passed by the Sessions Court and
the order of the Magistrate, dated 23.01.2013, taking
cognizance, the respondent filed revision before the
High Court being Criminal Revision No. 104/2013.
By the impugned judgment dated 08.07.2014, the
High Court allowed the revision petition and quashed
the complaint on the reason that the revisonal court
could not have taken cognizance on 23.01.2013 as the
same was in violation of Section 398 of Cr.P.C.
9. We have heard learned counsels appearing on
behalf of both the parties.
5
10. The questions that fall for consideration are in
regard to the legality of the remand order passed by
the Sessions Court and the order of the learned
Magistrate taking cognizance thereafter. As the High
Court has dealt with the validity of both the orders, we
would like to take up the same in seriatum starting
with legality of the remand order.
11. The respondent contends that the learned
Sessions Judge could not have observed on merits as
it amounted to taking cognizance of the matter. Such
contentions although seems attractive, but must be
rejected for reason that the revisional court only had
provided reasons for ordering further enquiry under
Section 398 of Cr.P.C and the observations provided
on merit cannot be said to have an effect of taking
cognizance in this case.
12. At the outset, before we decide the legality of
the remand order, we are required to determine the
6
scope of criminal revision under Section 397 read with
Section 398 of Cr.P.C. It would be appropriate to
reproduce Sections 397 and 398 of Cr.P.C herein.
Section 397. Calling for records to
exercise powers of revision.
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge
may call for and examine the record of any
proceeding before any inferior Criminal
Court situate within its or his local
jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying
itself or himself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and
as to the regularity of any proceedings of
such inferior Court, and may, when calling
for such record, direct that the execution of
any sentence or order be suspended, and if
the accused is in confinement, that he be
released on bail or on his own bond
pending the examination of the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates whether
Executive or Judicial, and whether
exercising original or appellate jurisdiction,
shall be deemed to be inferior to the
Sessions Judge for the purposes of this
sub- section and of section 398.
7
Section 398. Power to order inquiry.
On examining any record under section
397 or otherwise, the High Court or the
Sessions Judge may direct the Chief
Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of
the Magistrates subordinate to him to
make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate
may himself make or direct any
subordinate Magistrate to make, further
inquiry into any complaint which has been
dismissed under section 203 of
Sub-Section (4) of section 204 or into the
case of any person accused of an offence
who has been discharged:
Provided that no Court shall make any
direction under this section for inquiry into
the case of any person who has been
discharged unless such person has had an
opportunity of showing cause why such
direction should not be made.
A perusal of the aforesaid provisions portray that the
revisionary power is exercised either by the Sessions
Court or by the High Court and a dismissal of the
complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203 of Cr.P.C
may be assailed in a criminal revision under Section 397
8
of Cr.P.C. The ambit of revisional jurisdiction is well
settled. Section 397 of Cr.P.C empowers the Sessions
Judge to call for and examine the record of any
proceeding before any subordinate criminal court situate
within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself
as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the
regularity of any proceedings of such subordinate Court.
13. The extent of the revisionary powers inter alia,
is provided under Section 399 read with Section 401
of Cr.P.C. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that
Section 398 has to be read along with other Sections
which are equally applicable to the revision petitions
filed before the Sessions Court. Section 398 only deals
with a distinct power to direct further inquiry,
whereas Section 397 read with Section 399 and
Section 401 confers power on the revisionary
authority to examine correctness, legality or propriety
9
of any findings, sentence or order. The powers of the
revisionary court have to be cumulatively understood
in consonance with Sections 398, 399 and 401 of
Cr.P.C.
14. We may note that the High Court, in the
impugned judgment, came to an erroneous conclusion
that the Sessions Court had itself taken cognizance of
the matter which may be reproduced as under“On
bare perusal of this provision it is
clear that the impugned order cannot
be passed under Section 398 of the
Code. The word ‘may direct’ has been
used by the legislation in this
provision. It gives wide discretion to the
court to order further enquiry.
Sessions Court has no power to take
cognizance of the offence, assess the
offence and reach its own conclusion
whether there is ground for
proceeding with complaint or not
and further to direct a Magistrate
with regard to registration of a
complaint on finding a prima facie
case”.
10
15. On a perusal of the Sessions Court judgment
(quoted supra), we are of the opinion that the Sessions
Court did not pass an order taking cognizance. The
Sessions Court order should have been construed only
as a remand order for further enquiry. The
observations made by the Sessions Court were only
justification for a remand and the same did not
amount to taking cognizance. In view of the above, the
High Court clearly misconstrued the Sessions Court
order and proceeded on an erroneous footing. On the
other hand, the revisional court was also in error to
the extent of influencing the Magistrate Court to keep
the findings of Sessions Court in mind, while
considering the case on remand. The misconception
created before the High Court was due to the fact that
the remand order provided discretion for the trial
court to conduct further enquiry and thereafter
consider issuing process. The High Court in the case
11
at hand without appreciating the dichotomy between
taking cognizance and issuing summons, quashed the
complaint itself on wrong interpretation of law. In the
light of the above, the impugned order of the High
court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
16. Now coming to the second aspect as to the
legality of the order of the learned Magistrate taking
cognizance of the matter. The standard required by
the Magistrate while taking cognizance is well settled
by this court in catena of judgments. In
Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh &
Another, (2012) 3 SCC 64, this Court explained the
meaning of the word 'cognizance' holding that "...In
legal parlance cognizance is taking judicial notice by the
court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or
matter presented before it so as to decide whether there
is any basis for initiating proceedings and
determination of the cause or matter judicially". We may
12
note that the Magistrate while taking cognizance has
to satisfy himself about the satisfactory grounds to
proceed with the complaint and at this stage the
consideration should not be whether there is sufficient
ground for conviction. It may not be out of context to
note that at the stage of taking cognizance, the
Magistrate is also not required to record elaborate
reasons but the order should reflect independent
application of mind by the Magistrate to the material
placed before him.
17. On a perusal of the order of the learned
Magistrate taking cognizance, it is apparent that the
learned Magistrate observes that the Sessions court
has already made out a prima facie case. Such finding
would be difficult to sustain as the revisional court
only observed certain aspects in furtherance of
remanding the matter. Such observations could not
have been made by the Magistrate as he was expected
13
to apply his independent mind while taking
cognizance. In the case on hand, we recognize the
limitation on the appellate forum to review subjective
satisfaction of the Magistrate while taking cognizance,
but such independent satisfaction unless reflected in
the order would make it difficult to be sustained.
There is no dispute that Justice should not only be
done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen
to be done. It is wrought in our constitutional
tradition that we imbibe both substantive fairness as
well as procedural fairness under our criminal justice
system, in the sense of according procedural fairness,
in the making of decisions which affect rights,
interests and legitimate expectations, subject only to
the clear manifestation of a contrary statutory
intention.
18. On a different note, we may note that the
Magistrates across India have been guided on number
14
of occasions by concrete precedents of this Court to
exercise utmost caution while applying their judicious
mind in this regard. Unfortunately, we may note that
number of cases which are brought before us reflects
otherwise.
19. Our attention was drawn to the fact that a civil
court subsequently declared the sale deed executed by
Smt. Vidhyabai and others in favour of Jagat Narain
Thapak as null and void. Further we are apprised of
observations made by the Sessions Court on the
merits of the case. But we are not inclined to go into
those issues.
20. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and
the impugned judgment is set aside. Accordingly, the
complaint be considered by trial court afresh. Before
parting with this case, we may clarify that
the trial court is directed to proceed with the case
15
uninfluenced by anyobservations made by this Court
for the purpose of deciding the instant appeal.
………………………….J.
 (N. V. Ramana)
….……………………...J.
 (S. Abdul Nazeer)
New Delhi,
February 23, 2018.
16