Dalip Singh vs Mahla Ram and Others

P.D. Sharma, J.—Mahla Ram filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,466.75 nP. on the basis of a pro-note, dated 9th October, 1955, against Dalip Singh. The suit was tried by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda. Hans Raj, Lakhi Ram and Ramji Dass appeared as witnesses for the Plaintiff in that Court. The first two named were the marginal witnesses and the third scribe of the pronote. They deposed in favour of the Plaintiff. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the pronote was a forged document. The appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Bhatinda, on 20th January, 1961. Thereafter, Dalip Singh, who was Defendant in the civil suit, filed an application u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, on 18th March, 1961, in the Court of the District Judge with the prayer that a complaint might be lodged u/s 209 or 193 or both read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code, against Mahla Ram, Hans Raj, Lakhi Ram, Karam Chand, and Ramji Dass. The learned District Judge dismissed the application on the short ground that the proceedings against the above Respondents could have been taken under the provisions of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, and that they could not be subsequently proceeded against u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure. Dalip Singh has come up in revision against the above order.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in detail. Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides for prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below:

(1) No Court shall take cognizance--

(a)....

(b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely, Sections 193,...209,...228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceedings in any court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate;....

Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure runs:

(1) When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether on application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195, Sub-section (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such, preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court, and shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction and may take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged offence is non-bailable may, if it thinks necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate, and may bind over and person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate....

According to Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, no proceedings are to be taken under Sections 476 to 479 inclusive for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if in respect of such a person proceedings may be taken under this section. It will thus be seen that Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A prohibits the taking of proceedings under Sections 476 to 479 inclusive in those cases only where a person is to be prosecuted for giving or fabricating false evidence and not in other cases mentioned in Section 195. The Petitioner in the instant case has not only moved the Court for lodging a complaint u/s 193, Indian Penal Code, but also for initiating criminal proceedings against the Respondents u/s 209 read with Section 109 of the same Code, which do not fall within the orbit of Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned District Judge was, therefore, not correct in disallowing the Petitioner''s prayer for lodging a complaint u/s 209 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code by stating that he was precluded from doing so as laid down in Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure. The ruling of this Court given in Parshotam Lal L. Vir Bhan Vs. Madan Lal Bashambar Das, , relied upon by him is not applicable to the facts of the present case because there the prosecution of the Respondent was sought for giving or fabricating false evidence, which is not the same thing as dishonestly making false claim in Court, which is punishable u/s 209 of the Indian Penal Code.

For the above reasons, the order of the learned District Judge, dated 7th June, 1961, declining to entertain Dalip Singh''s application for lodging a complaint u/s 209 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code because of the directions contained in Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, is set aside. He should now dispose of this part of the Petitioner''s prayer on merits. The revision petition is decided accordingly.