Summary
The Supreme Court upheld quashing of a court-directed complaint against an advocate concerning a deceased litigant’s alleged thumb impression on an appeal-withdrawal application. The impression had been obtained before the document was filed. Applying Sachida Nand Singh and Iqbal Singh Marwah, the Court held that the section 195(1)(b)(ii) procedure did not apply to this pre-production forgery allegation. The applicant could not recast the case under section 195(1)(b)(i) after specifically invoking clause (ii) below. The decision did not determine guilt for forgery.
Issues
- Whether section 195(1)(b)(ii) applied to alleged forgery occurring before the document was produced in court.
- Whether the applicant could recast the proceedings under section 195(1)(b)(i) on appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The alleged forgery preceded filing of the withdrawal application; the special court-complaint procedure was held inapplicable. (¶¶ 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17)
Held
- Under Sachida Nand Singh, approved by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah, section 195(1)(b)(ii) concerns the specified document offences committed after the document is produced or given in evidence, while it is in court custody. Later production does not itself bring an earlier forgery within that clause. The withdrawal application already bore the disputed impressions when delivered to the advocate for filing. (¶¶ 6, 7, 11, 12, 13)
- The applicant’s prayer and the District Judge’s order expressly sought action under section 195(1)(b)(ii). The Supreme Court rejected the attempt to sustain that order by recasting the allegations as a clause (i) case. The distinction was applied to these proceedings, rather than treating every offence involving a previously created document as exempt from criminal law. (¶¶ 8, 9, 14, 15)
- The Court also noted that withdrawal of the judgment debtors’ appeal had not impaired the decree-holder heir’s interests, that the decree holders had withdrawn execution, and that the advocate’s own clients had not instituted proceedings against him. In the entire circumstances, the court-directed complaint under clause (ii) could not proceed. The ruling was not an adjudication that the alleged forgery was proved or lawful. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal dismissed. High Court order setting aside the District Judge’s direction and the resulting section 195(1)(b)(ii) complaint upheld.