A.R. Veerapandian vs State by the Collector of North Arcot at Vellore and Others

Paul, J.—This is a petition under S.482, Crl. P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the Criminal Proceedings launched against the petitioner in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathur.

The petitioner who is a Deputy Superintendent of Police under suspension and who is the fourth accused in P.R.C. No. 1/78 on the file of the S.D.J.M., Tiruppathur is being prosecuted for offences under Ss. 182, 193 and 194, I.P.C., on a complaint laid by the Collector of North Arcot at Vellore before the S.D.J.M., Tiruppathur, who, after holding an enquiry under S.202, Crl. P.C. has issued process to the accused under S.204, Crl. P.C.

The complaint against the petitioner and six others who are police officials alleges as follows: One Seeralan, son of Doraisami Gounder of Vakkannampatti, who was a Naxalite and whose activities were being watched by the police was involved along with his associates Sivalingam, Velu and others in various crimes of the Jalarpet police station and the police were making an intensive search for him and others. The fourth accused (petitioner herein) was in charge of the investigation in regard to the activities of these Naxalites. On 30th September, 1976 some Naxalites threw a country bomb at P.C. 291, Desing of the Ambur Rural Police Station and also stabbed him with knives and inflicted injuries on him and a case in Crime No. 1236 of 1976 under Ss.333 and 307 I.P.C., was registered and Seeralan as well as Sivalingam and others were found to be the accused in that case, and on 8th January, 1977 accused 1 to 3 who were deputed on special duty to trace Seeralan, Sivalingam, and others were moving about near Vakkanampatti, Kodiyoor and other villages in search of the suspects. The fifth accused, an Inspector of Police of the Naxalite Wing at Vellore along with his men was searching for Seeralan and others near Tirupattur, Vakkanampatti and other places and he was also searching for the Naxalite accused concerned in the Athipallam murder case of Krishnagiri Taluk as he had received information that Velu and some other Naxalites were responsible for the Athipallam murder. On 11th January, 1977, accused-5 directed accused 1 to 3 to get at Velu of Nainathiyoor for investigation and hence accused 1 to 3 went to Nainathiyoor fields where Velu was living but found Velu away from the house and Jaya, the wife of Velu, alone was present. While they were proceeding to Velu''s shed, accused 1 to 3 saw Seeralan and pursued him and caught hold of him in a brinjal field near Velu''s shed and then went to Velu''s shed and questioned his wife about Velu and were told that he had gone to Tirupattur with his mother-in-law in connection with an enquiry regarding the pledge of jewels. But, accused 1 to 3 disbelieved her version and searched her house, but found none there and took Seeralan to the nearby thope, tied him to a coconut tree, beat him with a yoke, and caused his death and in order to screen themselves from legal punishment for that murder, accused 1 to 3 concocted a false story that Velu, Srvalingam and another were in a hut of Velu on 11th January, 1977 and when they went there those persons tried to murder them by means of country bombs and by pushing them into a well and caused them hurt and gave a report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Natrampalli through the village Munsif, Udayakumar of Ammanankoil village, and they did so at the instigation of accused 4 to 7 and further accused 1 to 7 intentionally fabricated and gave false evidence before the Assistant Collector, Tiruppattur, a public servant and also before the One-Man inquiry Commission conducting a magisterial inquiry under P.S.O. 145 regarding the cause of death of Seeralan in Police custody and intentionally withheld the information about the identity of the deceased Seeralan with ulterior, motives and during the aforesaid inquiry accused-7 after the post-mortem of the dead body of Seeralan was over, with the prior permission of the Assistant Collector got the fingers of the deceased Sceralan cut by the Medical Officer and with the help of the Finger-Print Expert took the finger prints of Seeralan and got them compared with the admitted finger-prints of Seeralan, a suspect of the Railway Protection Force and who was concerned in Crime No. 33/74 and since the finger-prints were found to be identical and all the accused knowing full well that the deceased was Seeralan pretended that they did not know the identity of the deceased previously and withheld that important piece of evidence regarding the identity of the dead body from the Assistant Collector who was holding the inquiry under the P.S.O. 145 and accused 1 to 7 fabricated and intentionally gave false evidence regarding the identity of the deceased and cause of his death and other matters relating thereto. The complaint then goes on to give details of the false evidence fabricated and given by the various accused. We are not concerned with the false evidence given by the other accused. In so far as the present petitioner-fourth accused is concerned, the complaint states that this accused deposed before the One-Man Inquiry Commission that he came to know about the identity of the deceased Seeralan and informed the Assistant Collector, Tiruppattur over the phone and the Superintendent of Police about the identity of the deceased, but the Assistant Collector has refuted that statement of this accused and the report of the Superintendent of Police which was based on the information furnished by this accused and by accused-7 did not mention the deceased as Seeralan but identified (sic) him as some other person and thus this accused intentionally gave false evidence before the Commission and thus this accused along with others has committed offences punishable under Ss.182, 193 and 194, I.P.C

It is now contended before me first of all that on the facts mentioned in the complaint and in the statement recorded under S.202, Crl.P.C. no offence is made out against the petitioner. Secondly, it has been contended that the learned S.D.J.M. should not have taken cognizance of the offences under Ss. 182, 193 and 194 on the complaint filed by the Collector, North Arcot at Vellore by reason of the bar under S.195(1) of the Crl.P.C.

I shall first deal with the contention that taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner is barred by S.195(1) Crl.P.C. in view of the fact that the complaint against the petitioner for those offences has been laid by the Collector of North Arcot and not by Thiru S.P. Srinivasan, the Member of the Board of Revenue who was the One-Man Inquiry Commission and before whom false information and false evidence had been given during the inquiry. S.195, Crl.P.C. states as follows:-

(1) No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under Ss. 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 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, Ss. 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 proceedings in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in S.463, or punishable under S.471, S.475 or S.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).

Except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is Subordinate.

The rest of the section is not germane to a consideration of the matter before me.

Now, the complaint laid against the petitioner is that he has committed offences under Ss. 182, 193 and 194, I.P.C. S.182, I.P.C. relates to the giving of fake information to a public servant with intent to cause the public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person and it reads as follows:-

Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant-

(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment......

Under S.195(1)(a)(i), Crl.P.C. no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under S.182, I.P.C. except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Now, the allegation in the complaint laid against the petitioner is that he had given false information to Thiru S.P. Srinivasan, Member of the Board of Revenue who was the One-Man Inquiry Commission. Paragraphs 44 to 46 of the complaint laid against the petitioner clearly show that the petitioner is being sought to be made liable for an offence punishable under S.182, I.P.C. for the statements he had made before Thiru S.P. Srinivasan, Member of the Board of Revenue and One-Man Inquiry Commission. Thiru S.P. Srinivasan, Member of the Board of Revenue is therefore, the person who ought to have laid the complaint in writing against the petitioner for the offence under S.192 by reason of S.195(i)(a)(i), Crl.P.C. But, he did not lay the complaint. It was the Collector of North Arcot who laid the complaint against the petitioner and others. Thiru S.P. Srinivasan is undoubtedly not a subordinate of the Collector of North Arcot and is administratively not Subordinate to the Collector of North Arcot. It is only if the complaint had been laid by Thiru S. P. Srinivasan to whom the false information is alleged to have been given by the petitioner or by some other public servant to whom Thiru S.P. Srinivasan is administratively subordinate that the Court could take cognizance of it under S.195(i)(a)(i), Crl.P.C. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, of an offence under S.182, I.P.C. on the complaint laid against the petitioner by the Collector of North Arcot is clearly violative of S.195(1)(a)(i) of the Crl.P.C.

The other two offences alleged against the petitioner in the complaint are offences under Ss.193 and 194, I.P.C. S.193 relates to the intentional giving of false evidence in any stage of a Judicial proceeding or intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding and also intentionally giving or fabricating false evidence in any other case. S.194, I.P.C. relates to giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to produce conviction for capital offence. Now, S.195(1)(a)(i), Crl.P.C. states that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Ss.193, 194 etc., when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court......except on the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Therefore, if an offence under S.193 or 194, I.P.C. is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court, then without the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate, no Court shall take cognizance of the offence.

S.193, I.P.C. reads as follows:

Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a Judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceeding, shall be punished and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished...

Therefore, S.193, I.P.C. envisages, three categories of intentional giving of falsi evidence; firstly, intentional giving of false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, secondly, fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding and thirdly, the intentional giving or fabricating of false evidence in any other case.

S.195(b)(i), Crl. P.C. would bar the taking of cognizance of any of these offences by the Court without the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate, only when such an offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any Court. S.195(3) says that in clause (b) of sub-S. (1), of S.195, Crl. P.C. the term ''Court'' means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. Sub-S.(4) of S.195 states that for the purposes of clause (b) of sub-S. (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having (sic) ordinary civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such civil Court is situate.

Now, the first question to be determined on this aspect of the matter is, whether the One-Man Inquiry Commission would come under the definition of a Court. Sri S. Pichai on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the inquiry conducted by Thiru S.P. Srinivasan, Member of the Board, of Revenue was only an inquiry under the provisions of the Police Standing Orders which Standing Orders would not have the effect of a statute or any rules framed under a Statute by the powers conferred by the Statute for framing rules on matters coming within the purview of that Act. He has contended that the Police Standing Orders are only administrative guidelines issued to the Subordinate Police staff and they have been held by this Court as not statutory in character.

The Madras Police Standing Orders do not show that they were rules framed under any statute. Prima facie, they appear to be administrative orders relating to the work of the police department. The Tamil Nadu District Police Act does not confer any powers to frame rules under the Act. S.50 of this Act says that any charge against a police-officer above the rank of a constable under this Act shall be enquired into and determined only by an officer exercising the powers of a Magistrate. This is the only reference to an enquiry under the provisions of this Act. An enquiry under Order 145 of the Police Standing Orders which prescribes the procedure to be adopted in regard to charges of torture or causing death or grievous hurt against police Officials, cannot be said to be a rule framed under S 50 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act. Likewise, in the Madras City Police Act also there is no provision for the framing of any rules under that Act. S.78 of the Act however empowers the State Government to make by-laws consistent with the Act for more effectually carrying out the objects thereof and for the preservation of the order and from time to time repeal, alter or amend any such by-law. The Act creates a number of offences also. In these circumstances I find that the Police Standing Orders cannot be said to be in the nature of rules framed under the provisions of any statute which will have statutory authority, but are merely administrative orders. Such being the case, the One-Man Inquiry Commission making an Inquiry under the Police Standing Order 145 cannot be deemed to be a Court or a tribunal constituted by or under a Central Provincial or State Act declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of S.195.

In Rajangam v. State of Madras 1958 M.W.N. Cri. 141 it was pointed out that the Madras Police Standing Orders published by authority are comprised under three heads: Orders marked with asterisk are issued by the Inspector General of Police under S.9 of the Madras District Police Act with the approval of the Government; Orders and amendments printed in bold types are verbatim reproductions from orders of the Government or of any higher authority or from Codes and Manuals and other departments of the Government. It was further held in that decision that inquiries (sic) under S 176, Crl. P.C. of 1898 coupled with Police Standing Order 157 are not judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and they constitute nothing more than a fact finding enquiry and have none of the characteristics of Judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. It was further pointed out in that decision that in Brajnandan Singh v. Jyoti Narain 1956 M.W.N. 318 it was held that the Commissioner appointed under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act of 1850, is not a Court within the meaning of S.3 of the Contempt of Courts Act and in M.V. Rajawada v. Dr. S.M. Hason ILR 1954 Nag. 1 it was held that a commissioner set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 was not a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Therefore the intentional giving of false evidence before the One-Man Inquiry Commission cannot be said to be an offence alleged to have been committed in any proceedings in any Court, and consequently, S.195(1)(b)(i), Crl. P.C. would not bar the taking cognizance of such an offence. Of course, S. 193, I.P.C. also covers intentional giving or fabricating false evidence in any other case. That offence, however, is not covered by the bar laid by S.195(1)(b)(i), Crl. P.C., for, S. 195(1)(b)(i) covers only when the intentional giving of a false evidence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any Court.

Then the next question that arises for consideration is whether the statement made by the petitioner before Thiru S.P. Srinivasan would amount to giving of false evidence.

S. 191, I.P.C. is as follows:

Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.

It is admitted that by G.O.Ms. 1386, Public (Law & Order-A) Department, dated 15th June, 1977 Thiru S.P. Srinivasan, Member of the Board of Revenue was directed by the Government to conduct an enquiry into the circumstances that led to the death of one Seeralan at Nainathiyoor village in Natrampalli Police station limits of North Arcot District on 11th January, 1977. The terms of reference were the following:

(i) to ascertain the circumstances under which the deceased Seeralan met with his death;

(ii) to ascertain the extent of culpability, if any, of the various police officials and others in the death of Seeralan;

(iii) whether there was any attempt on the part of the police to intimidate witnesses to prevent them from giving evidence; and.

(iv) to report on such other incidental matters as the Enquiry Officer may consider relevant to the case.

The circumstances in which this enquiry was ordered by the Government were that the Collector of North Arcot had by his letter No. E 9/8608/77, dated 23rd March, 1977 submitted a report of an enquiry under P.S.O. 145 conducted by the Assistant Collector, Tirupattur on the death of an unidentified person in a scuffle between the police and some others including the deceased in Nainathiyur village within the limits of Natrampalli police station on 11th January, 1977 and the Collector had mentioned in that report that the deceased on enquiries made later was identified one Selvan, son of Periasami. But on examining the report of the enquiry by the Assistant Collector, the Government found that a number of points on which evidence was gathered at the enquiry were inadequate and incomplete and they directed the Collector to have those points clarified further and subsequently some reports appeared in the press in the first week of June, 1976 alleging that one Seeralan belonging to Ponnerlu Village near Jolarpet had been murdered by certain Police Personnel on 11th January, 1977 at Nainathiyur village and the press report raised a number of questions relating to the injuries, cause of death, circumstances under which the deceased met his death, etc., and the Tamil Nadu Civil Liberties Association presented a petition to the Government on 12th June, 1977 to the effect that they had informally investigated the circumstances leading to the death of Seeralan of Ponneril village and requested judicial enquiry into the circumstances of hit death and hence the Government felt that in the circumstances it would be in the interests of justice to have the matter thoroughly enquired into by a senior officer of the Government aid hence ordered an enquiry by Thiru S.P. Srinivasan.

It cannot be gainsaid that the enquiry was not ordered under the Commissions of Enquiry Act. It was only an investigation ordered by the Government and was somewhat similar to an enquiry held under P.S.O. 145 by R.D.O. Thiru S.P. Srinivasan, it is admitted, did not administer any oath to the witnesses but merely asked them to truly describe whether they knew about the circumstances relating to Seeralan''s death on 11th January, 1977 and statements recorded from the witnesses were read over to them and they signed the statements. Therefore, the witnesses were not legally bound by oath to state the truth in the enquiry by Thiru Srinivasan.

The next question is whether they were bound by law to make a declaration before Thiru S.P. Srinivasan. Since the enquiry by Thiru S.P. Srinivasan was neither an enquiry under P.S.O. 145 or under any of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or under the Commissions of Inquiry Act or under any other statute but was purely a fact finding enquiry held under the orders of the Government, the witnesses who deposed in that enquiry were not legally bound by any express provision of law to state the truth or were bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject. Therefore, the making of any statement before that Commission by any of those witnesses including the petitioners which was not the truth, would not be tantamount to giving false evidence within the meaning of S. 191, I.P.C. Therefore, the ingredients of an offence under s. 193, I.P.C. are not disclosed in the complaint laid against the petitioner.

Coming now to the offence under S. 194, I.P.C. which has also been referred to in the complaint laid against the petitioner, S. 194, I.P.C., reads at follows:-

Whoever lives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offences which is capital by the law for the time being in force in India shall be punished.......

I have already found that the statement made by the petitioner before Thiru S.P. Srinivasan would not amount to intentionally giving false evidence even if those statements were untrue, in view of the definition of false evidence as given in S. 191, I.P.C. Moreover, those statements, untrue even if they were, would not amount to giving false evidence intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that the petitioner will thereby cause any person to be convicted of an offence which is capital by law, for, the petitioner had, according to the Collector instigated the other accused to file a complaint under S. 307, I.P.C. against some persons. Therefore, an offence under S. 194, I.P.C. also is not disclosed in the complaint.

Therefore, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in so far as offences under Ss. 182, 193 and 194, I.P.C. are concerned have to be, and are quashed.