Nanjundaiah vs Rangaiah

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gubbi, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under section 203 of the Crl.P.C.

The complaint case was that the petitioner alone was cultivating 13 Acres 2 Guntas of land situate in Survey No. 148 of Kadaba village. The pahani entries in favour of petitioner reveal that right from 1967-68 upto 1974-75 he was cultivating the land personally. According to the complainant the respondent-accused who is the village Accountant wanted to help one Tirumalaiah and therefore made a false entry in his favour in the pahani for the year 1975-76. In the complaint it was mentioned that some proceeding was pending before the Land Tribunal and in that connection the pahani for the year 1975-76 was intended to be used in favour of Tirumalaiah. According to the complainant the entry was false and since it was intended to be used in a judicial proceeding, the offence under Section 193 of the IPC was committed.

After receiving the complaint since the offence was non-cognizable, investigation was sought for under Sec. 155(2) of the Crl.P.C. and during the course of that investigation it was found that the impugned entry was false and it was made by the accused in order to help Tirumalaiah. The police reported that a case under S. 193 of the IPC was prima facie established against the accused.

The learned Magistrate, however, thought that the accused was performing his duty as public servant. He was protected under S. 196 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and as such he could not be prosecuted for an offence under Sec. 193 of the IPC. He further held that it was not known in what manner the entry would be helpful in the proceeding before the Tribunal, because the relevant year for the entry before the Tribunal was 1973-74 while the impugned entry was for the year 1975-76. With these observations, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under S. 203 of the Crl.P.C. and the present revision is directed against the order.

While dealing with the case of dismissal of complaint under S. 203 of the Crl.P.C. reference need be made to that section which says that after considering statements on oath if any of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the enquiry or investigation if any under S. 202 of the Crl.P.C, if the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he has to dismiss the complaint. Otherwise, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he cannot dismiss the complaint under S. 203 of the Crl.P.C. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Nirmalaii Sing Hoon v. State of West Bengal, AIR.1972 SC. 2639. the words "sufficient ground" used in S. 203 mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused, by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and do not mean sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before, him is self-contradictory, orintrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused, if upon that evidence the prima facie case was made out. The same view has been re-iterated by their Lordships in SmtNagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingagappa Koujalgi, AIR. 1976 SC. 1947. which was a reverse case, where process was issued by the Magistrate and it was contended that the process could not be issued as there was no sufficient ground for proceeding. It was observed that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or do-merits of the case at that stage. Following the ratio of these two decisions it has to be ascertained whether the learned Magistrate could hold that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused so that he could dismiss the complaint under S. 203 of the Cr.P.Code.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the allegations made in the complaint. It was mentioned therein that a false entry was made with a view to help Tirumalaiah in a proceeding pending before the Land Tribunal. The complainant very much asserted that he was all along in possession and a wrong entry was made for the year 1975-76. The discussion of the learned Magistrate that the entry made for the year 1975-76 will have no bearing for the proceeding before the Land Tribunal, rather presumed too much at the present stage in favour of be accused. A reading of S. 192 of the I.P. Code, makes it clear, that if false entry is made in any book or record and that circumstance assists the Court to form an opinion upon that evidence in favour or against somebody, that is enough to hold that false evidence was fabricated. If such false evidence is used in a judicial proceeding, the offence made this one under S. 193. One does not know in what manner the false years made for the year 1975-76 would influence the Land Tribunal, though the Tribunal may be mainly concerned with the entry found for the year 1973-74. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified to presume any thing in favour of the accused at that stage. All must spend upon the evidence to be produced in the case and how far the prosecution should succeed in proving the case against the accused. The learned Magistrate was only concerned with a cause sufficient or otherwise for proceeding against the accused. He was not concerned with a cause sufficient for conviction of the accused.

The learned Counsel for the respondent-accused strenuously argued that under S. 196 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act there was a protection to a public servant who made entries in the R.T.C. and no criminal proceedings could be filed against him. A reading of that section would make it clear that the question of good faith would arise in order to give that protection to the accused. In order to prove or disprove the good faith much evidence was need to be produced before the Magistrate. Again, at the present stage it was not possible to give any categorical finding either in favour of the accused or even against him, as much depended upon the evidence for which the stage has not arrived. The learned Magistrate was at the preliminary stage of issuing the process and he had to consider if sufficient ground was made our in the evidence before him for proceeding against the accused. The learned Counsel for the respondent-accused contended that the accuses saw Tirumalaiah cultivating the land during the year 1975-76 and made the entry in his name. That may or may not be correct because one is not required to consider the defence with that much care and caution as the stage as would be done during the course of the trial. The learned Counsel then contended that the entry would be corrected if found to be false under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. That may be so. But again the Court was not concerned with any proceeding under the Land Revenue Act. The Court was concerned with the offence under Sec. 193 of the I.P. Code and to that extent it would consider if prima facie case was made out for issuing the process.

The learned Counsel for the respondent-accused further referred to S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and contended that there would be presumption under that section in favour of the entry made. That would recording to the learned Counsel reflect upon the case inasmuch as the entry unless proved to be wrong is right and hence not a false entry. In reply to that argument the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the presumption thus intended to be availed of on behalf of the accused under S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act would also lead to the inference before the Tribunal that Tirumalaiah was a tenant as he would be presumed to be a tenant during 1975-76 In that context the learned Counsel argued that the false entry made for the year 1975-76 will have a far-reaching consequence and it was not correct on the part of the Magistrate to how that the decision before the Tribunal would not be affected by that entry.

In this view of the matter, the order made by the learned Magistrate was perse invalid and need be set aside. The revision is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside. The case shall be sent back to him for consideration on merit under S. 203 of the Cr.P. Code and thereafter he shall proceed in accordance with law.