1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1845 OF 2017
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 4073 OF 2017)
SENIOR MANAGER (P&D),RIICO LTD. APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN J.
This appeal has been filed against judgment dated
07.02.2017 of Rajasthan High Court dismissing Single Bench
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition which was filed by the
appellant questioning the judgment dated 22.07.2011 of
Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the Criminal Revision
Petition preferred by the appellant.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal disclose several
stages of litigation arising out of First Information Report
2
lodged by appellant dated 29.04.1992 under Section 420 IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for
deciding this appeal are:
A letter dated 10.04.1992 was purported to be issued by
Regional Manager, RIICO, Sriganganagar to the Respondent No. 2
M/s. Kanha Refined Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. through Ravi
Setia(Partner). The appellant who was working as Regional
Manager and had allegedly signed the above letter when came to
know about the letter dated 10.04.1992, he asked Respondent
No. 2 on 23.04.1992 to produce the original copy of the letter
within 24 hours. The letter was not produced before the office
of Respondent No. 2 rather on 27.04.1992 the letter was
produced by his counsel in Suit Case No. 2/84 titled M/s.
Kanha Refined Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. Vs. RIICO Limited.
On 29.04.1992 the appellant filed a First Information Report
No. 184 under Section 420 IPC alleging that on 10.04.1992 a
letter has been forged by Respondent No. 2 and got it
dispatched from the office by a Class IV employee, Raghuvir
Singh on 10.04.1992. It is alleged that by playing fraud,
forged and bogus document has been prepared by Respondent No.
2 hence, offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are made
out. FIR was registered under Section 420. A Final Report was
3
submitted by the Inspector, Police Station Kotwali. In the
Final Report, it was mentioned that since the letter dated
10.04.1992 has been filed in Case No. 2/84, in view of
provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. the police cannot
investigate the matter. The Final Report was accepted by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 22.05.1998, relying
on Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The appellant filed a
Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge who
vide his order dated 01.05.2000 set aside the order of Chief
Judicial Magistrate and remanded the matter. The Trial Court
passed a fresh order granting opportunity of hearing to the
complainant. The Chief Judicial Magistrate after the remand
again relying on Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. held that
letter having been filed in civil suit, cognizance cannot be
taken. The Protest Petition was dismissed and Final Report was
accepted. The Criminal Revision was filed by the appellant
challenging the order dated 12.03.2003. The Revisional Court
held that the provision of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is
not applicable to the facts of the present case. The
Revisional Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this
court in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,
(1998) 2 SCC 493, where it was held that when the document
before producing in the Court has been prepared in a forged
4
manner, provision of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. cannot be
made applicable. The Revisional Court set aside the order of
subordinate court and directed the court below to pass an
order in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence
available on file.
4. Operative portion of the judgment is as follows:
"ORDER
Hence, by allowing the Revision of the
Revisionist, the order dated 12.03.2003 is
hereby setaside and Subordinate Court is
hereby ordered that it shall pass an order
afresh in accordance with law, on the
basis of evidence available on file and
after granting opportunity of hearing to
the Complainant. The Case File shall be
produced before the Subordinate Court on
08.08.2003.”
5. After the order of Revisional Court, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate again considered the matter and by order dated
20.06.2009 rejected the Protest Petition of appellant. The
Chief Judicial Magistrate noticed the order of the
Revisional Court that benefit of Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. can not be granted to the accused in the present
case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not rely on Section
195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. rather looking to the materials on
record came to the conclusion that prima facie case of
5
forged document and playing fraud have not been made out
against the accused. Aggrieved against the order dated
20.06.2009, a Revision Application was also filed before the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge by the appellant which
has been dismissed on 22.07.2011. The order dated 22.07.2011
was challenged before the High Court by filing a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by the
High Court on 07.02.2017 which order is under challenge in
this appeal.
6. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that in the present case the forged letter dated
10.04.1992 was filed in Civil Court on 27.04.1992 that is
subsequent to letter having been forged. The provisions of
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. were not attracted and there was
no prohibition in law in taking cognizance of the offence. He
submitted that the Respondent No. 2 was the beneficiary of the
letter which was addressed to him hence the courts below ought
to have taken cognizance of the offence. He submitted that
Courts below committed error in not taking cognizance of the
offence.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 refuting
the submission of counsel for the appellant contended that
6
present is a case where there is no issue pertaining to
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. He submitted that learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 20.06.2009 has not
dismissed the Protest Petition on the ground of bar of Section
195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. rather has after considering the
evidence on record held that no prima facie case has been made
out against the Respondent No. 2 for taking cognizance of the
offence. He further submitted that from the evidence on
record, it is clear that letter was dispatched from the office
of Regional Manager and it has further come on record that a
Class IV employee Shri Raghuvir Singh of the office has
dispatched the letter. He submitted that there is no material
on record to even prima facie suggest that the Respondent No.
2 is involved in forging the letter. He submitted that the
courts below after considering the materials have rightly come
to the conclusion that no case has been made out to allow the
Protest Petition filed by the appellant.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the record. In so far as,
submission of the appellant regarding Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. the law is not well settled by the Constitution Bench
judgment that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted
only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have
7
been committed with respect to a document after it has been
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.
The Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs.
Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370 in para 33 & 34 had
held:
“33. In view of the discussion made above,
we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand
Singh (1998) 2 SCC 493 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.
34. In the present case, the Will has been
produced in the court subsequently. It is
nobody's case that any offence as
enumerated in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) was
committed in respect to the said Will
after it had been produced or filed in the
Court of District Judge. Therefore, the
bar created by Section 195(1)(b) (ii) CrPC
would not come into play and there is no
embargo on the power of the court to take
cognizance of the offence on the basis of
the complaint filed by the respondents.
The view taken by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge and the High Court is
perfectly correct and calls for no
interference.”
9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, present is a
8
case where letter dated 10.04.1992 is claimed to be a forged
letter not signed by appellant. From the materials on record,
it is clear that the said letter dated 10.04.1992 was filed
before the Court on 27.04.1992 in Case No. 2/84. There is no
case that forgery was committed after the letter was filed in
the Court. Thus, provision under Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. was not attracted. A perusal of the Final Report
which was submitted by Inspector, Police Station Kotwali, it
is clear that the Inspector after conducting an investigation
ultimately concluded that in view of Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. Police cannot investigate the matter. The Final Report
is filed as Annexure P.4. A perusal of which also indicates
that the Inspector, obtained the Original Letter dated
10.04.1992 from the Case No. 2/84 and had sent writing of the
undisputed script and specimen script of appellant to
handwriting expert and opinion was obtained that signatures of
S.K. Sharma on letter dated 10.04.1992 was forged.
10. After the remand by Revisional Court on 01.05.2000, the
Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 12.03.2003 again
relied on Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. for coming to the
conclusion that cognizance cannot be taken. Criminal Revision
was filed against the said order before the Revisional Court
and Revisional Court vide its judgment dated 21.07.2003 has
9
decided the issue of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The
Revisional Court held that the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)
(ii) Cr.P.C. are not attracted. The Revisional Court vide
its order dated 21.07.2003 set aside the order of Subordinate
Court and directed the Subordinate Court to pass a fresh order
in accordance with law after considering the evidence on file
on merit. Subsequent the order passed by the Revisional Court,
matter was not carried on any further for the accused. Thus,
the issue of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. came to an end in
favour of the appellant. The order of Chief Judicial
Magistrate dated 20.06.2009 as well as the Revisional Court
dated 22.07.2011, does not rely on Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. for rejecting the Protest Petition of the appellant.
Thus, the submission on the basis of Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
Cr.P.C. are not relevant for deciding the present appeal. In
fact submission raised on behalf of the complainant pertaining
to nonapplicability of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. has been
accepted by the Courts below as already noted above. Thus, no
benefit can be availed by appellant on the strength of above
submission.
11. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated
20.06.2009 as well as the Revisional Court has considered the
material on record and came to the conclusion that no prima
10
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 No. 37/97. The Revisional Court also after
considering all the submissions of appellant have dismissed
the Revision on merits. It is useful to refer to the following
observations of Revisional Court:
“According to the aforesaid offensive
elements the Revisionist during the course
of investigation in his statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. has
only stated that Ravi Setia in order to
play fraud prepared the letter by
committing forgery, whereas the Junior
Accountant Atar Singh in the office of the
Revisionist has stated during his
statements dated 19.05.1992 that the
alleged letter dated 10.04.1992 has not
been dispatched by him, rather it has been
dispatched by the Assistant Employee
Raghuvir Singh. In this way in the context
of the writing of said letter, it was
necessary to send the writing of the Class
IV Employee Raghuvir Singh to the
Handwriting Expert at FSL. Further, the
FSL in its Report No. 37/97 dated
31.01.1998 has given this conclusion that
the specimen signatures of the Revisionist
and disputed signatures upon matching mark
Q1 and Q2 have been stated to be forged
one. But in this conclusion it has also
been mentioned that it has not been
established as to these signatures are of
whom and these signatures would have made
by Ravi Setia. In this way letter the
letter dated 10.04.1992 would have
prepared by the Respondent No. 2 in a
forged manner, at this stage, it has not
become clear in any manner. Therefore, at
11
this stage, there is no ground available
for taking cognizance against the
Respondent No. 2 under Section 467, 468
and 471 I.P.C.”
12. The above order of the Revisional Court was challenged
before the High Court and High Court also came to the
conclusion that no evidence is available on record to suggest
that letter dated 10.04.1992 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 as noted above on the ground relying on Section
195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. but before submitting the report
investigation was conducted by the Inspector, Police Station
Kotwali and the materials collected during the investigation
were all referred to in the Final Report. Holding that the
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the present
case, the Revisional Court vide its judgment dated 21.07.2003
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
came to conclusion that there are no sufficient material for
taking cognizance against the accused.
13. High Court also took the same view, in which we do not
find any infirmity. In view of the forgoing discussion, we do
12
not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed,
accordingly.
..........................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
..........................J.
NEW DELHI, ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
NOVEMBER 03, 2017.
