Babu Lal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Civil Appeal No.708 of 1962

Decision Date: 18 September 1963

Coram: J.C. Shah, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, Raghubar Dayal

In the case titled Babu Lal versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the judgment was delivered on 18 September 1963 by a Bench consisting of Justice J. C. Shah, Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar, Justice K. N. Wanchoo and Justice Raghubar Dayal.

The petitioner in the appeal was Babu Lal and the respondents were the State of Uttar Pradesh together with several other parties. The appeal was heard under special leave and arose from a civil suit in which the appellant was examined as a witness and produced an agreement that the Munsiff had held to be forged.

The Munsiff, however, did not record the specific opinion required to order prosecution of the appellant under section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondents who were plaintiffs in the civil suit applied, before the suit was finally disposed of, that action should be taken against the appellant under section 479A. When the suit was disposed of, the Munsiff again failed to record the opinion that would have authorised proceedings under section 479A.

Subsequently the respondents moved the Munsiff to direct that a complaint be filed against the appellant exercising the powers conferred by section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order was based on the allegation that the appellant had fraudulently or dishonestly used a document as genuine while knowing, or having reason to believe, that the document was forged. The District Judge confirmed the Munsiff’s order and the revision to the High Court was dismissed. The matter then reached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave appeal.

The Court held that section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure removes the jurisdiction of a court to proceed under sections 476 to 479 only with respect to offences under section 195(b) and 195(c) of the same Code, where a person appearing before the court or a witness deliberately gives false evidence at any stage of judicial proceedings or deliberately fabricates false evidence for use in any stage of the proceedings.

The Court further held that the offence punishable under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code does not fall within the category contemplated by section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the authority of the court to act under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains intact and is not impaired by the provisions of section 479A.

The judgment cited the authorities of Raghubar Prasad Dudhwalla v. Chamanlal Mehra, reported in the 1964 volume of the Supreme Court Reports at page 980, and Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra, reported in the 1963 supplementary volume of the Supreme Court Reports at page 501, as supporting precedents.

The matter was a civil appellate jurisdiction involving Civil Appeal No. 708 of 1962, arising from the judgment and order dated 31 January 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 60 of 1960.

The matter was listed on 18 September 1963. Counsel for the appellant was represented by counsel for the appellant; counsel for respondent No 1 was represented by counsel for that respondent; counsel for respondents Nos 2 to 5 was represented by counsel for those respondents. The judgment was pronounced by Justice Shah. In the suit before the Munsiff Court at Koil in the Aligarh district, the plaintiffs – identified as Jairam and three others and thereafter referred to collectively as “the plaintiffs” – instituted proceedings against Babu Lal, who was the appellant in the present appeal. The relief claimed by the plaintiffs consisted of a decree for possession of a strip of land, an order directing removal of a wall and a stone slab, and an injunction restraining the plaintiffs’ house from any further construction on its northern wall.

The plaintiffs asserted that Mohini, the wife of Jairam the first plaintiff, had purchased the house in which the plaintiffs were residing by a sale deed dated 1 August 1932 from a vendor who was also named Mohini. They further claimed that this Mohini had earlier acquired the same house by a sale deed dated 25 July 1917 from the original owner, Kishan Lal. Babu Lal, who is the son of Kishan Lal, denied that the plaintiffs’ predecessor‑in‑interest obtained any valid title. He pleaded that the vendor Mohini had only a life interest in the house, a limited interest conferred by the deed through which Kishan Lal had conveyed the property to her, and that consequently the sale deed of 1 August 1932 did not transfer any estate in fee to the plaintiffs.

To support this contention, Babu Lal produced evidence at trial. He tendered an agreement dated 25 July 1917, purportedly executed by Mohini, in which she allegedly acknowledged that the sale deed granting her the house was made without consideration and that she possessed only a life interest. The trial judge examined this agreement and held that it was “not genuine.” The judge concluded that Mohini, as the predecessor‑in‑interest of the plaintiffs, had acquired a full title to the house under the 1 August 1932 sale deed, and on that basis decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

When the decision of the Munsiff was appealed to the District Court, the finding that the agreement presented by Babu Lal was not genuine was not contested. Before the Munsiff finally disposed of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that application they alleged that Babu Lal had deliberately given false evidence before the court, that he had forged the agreement on which he relied, and that he had fabricated false evidence and used that fabricated evidence during the trial. The plaintiffs further alleged that these acts amounted to offences punishable under sections 193, 209, 463 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Munsiff, however, did not adjudicate the application in his judgment that decided the suit. After the suit was finally decided, the plaintiffs again approached the Munsiff seeking an order on their pending application. The Munsiff then held that no criminal action could be initiated against Babu Lal for the offences of intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence for use in the suit, because such action was barred by section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the opinion of the trial judge it was appropriate, in the interest of justice, to lodge a criminal complaint against Babu Lal for offences specified under sections 463 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, on the basis of the order dated 30 May 1959, a formal complaint was filed charging Babu Lal with having committed an offence punishable under section 471 read with section 463 of the Indian Penal Code by using an agreement dated 25 July 1917 while knowing, or having reason to believe, that the agreement was a forged document. The decision of the trial court was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the District Judge of Aligarh, and an application for revision that was presented to the High Court of Allahabad challenging that order was dismissed. With the grant of special leave, Babu Lal then filed an appeal before this Court.

Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure outlines the procedural framework to be followed for prosecuting offenders in respect of certain offences that affect the administration of justice. Section 476 delineates the procedure for prosecuting offenders for offences listed in section 195(1)(b) and ( c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a civil, revenue or criminal court holds the view that it is expedient, in the interest of justice, to investigate any offence referred to in section 195(1)(b) or ( c) that appears to have been committed in connection with proceedings before that court, the court may, after conducting any necessary preliminary inquiry, record a finding to that effect, prepare a written complaint, and forward the complaint to a magistrate of the first class who has jurisdiction over the matter.

Section 476A empowers a superior court to issue a complaint in cases where a subordinate court has failed to do so, in accordance with the circumstances described in section 476(1). Section 476B provides for a right of appeal against an order either making or refusing to make such a complaint. Sections 478 and 479 prescribe the procedure to be adopted in particularly serious cases. Section 479A, which was introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 26 of 1955, contains a first sub‑section that states: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 476 to 479 inclusive, when any civil, revenue or criminal court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence at any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used at any stage of the judicial proceeding, and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the court shall, at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard,”

Section 479A (6) provides that no proceeding may be instituted under sections 476, 477, 478 or 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the prosecution of a person for giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence if, for that same person, proceedings may be taken under Section 479A. The provision therefore makes clear that the special procedure laid down in sub‑section (1) of Section 479A is the exclusive remedy when the case falls within the ambit of that sub‑section. Sub‑section (1) itself has a narrow reach; it applies only to a witness who appears before a court and who, in the opinion of that court, has intentionally given false evidence at any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for use at any stage of the proceeding. Consequently, the special procedure can be invoked only in cases that satisfy the first paragraph of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code together with the related provisions of Sections 194 and 195, that is, when the offence of false evidence or fabrication is committed by a witness who is actually testifying in the proceeding.

In the present matter, the respondent Babu Lal was called as a witness in a civil suit instituted by the plaintiffs. He produced an agreement dated 25 July 1917 as part of his evidence. The Munsiff, after examining the document, formed the opinion that the agreement was a forged document. However, the Munsiff’s final judgment did not contain any finding that it would be expedient for the eradication of perjury and the fabrication of false evidence, nor that it would be in the interests of justice to prosecute Babu Lal for the offence of intentionally giving false evidence or for intentionally fabricating false evidence for use at any stage of the proceeding. As a result, the Munsiff could not, after disposing of the suit, lodge a complaint under Section 479A for the offences of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence. The trial court accepted this limitation on its jurisdiction and, invoking the powers conferred by Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed that a complaint be filed under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine a document that Babu Lal knew, or had reason to believe, was forged. Counsel representing Babu Lal argued that a complaint under Section 471 could also be made pursuant to Section 479A and not otherwise. The language of Section 479A, however, is plain and unequivocal: it excludes the court’s jurisdiction to proceed under sections 476 to 479 for offences enumerated in Section 195(1)(b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless the person is a witness who has intentionally given false evidence or intentionally fabricated false evidence for use in any stage of the judicial proceeding.

In this case, the Court explained that an offence punishable under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, which consists of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine any document that the accused knows or has reason to believe is forged, does not fall within the class of offences contemplated by subsection 1 of section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the Court’s power to proceed under section 476 of the Code is not curtailed by subsection 6 of section 479A. The Court then referred to its earlier decision in Raghubir Prosad Dudhtvalla v. Chamanlal Mehra and another, observing that the special procedure laid down in section 479A is intended exclusively for the prosecution of a witness who either intentionally gives false evidence at any stage of a judicial proceeding or intentionally fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used at any stage of a judicial proceeding. The Court further noted that the provision contains no language that bars the application of any other procedure prescribed by the Code for offences other than those covered by section 479A. While examining the special procedure, the Court stressed that the acts of intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence for use in a judicial proceeding, as mentioned in section 479A, are the very acts made punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and the corresponding sections in Chapter XI.

The Court observed that some elements of the offence of fabricating false evidence under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code overlap with the elements of making a false document and thereby committing forgery as defined in sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code. It explained that a person who makes a false entry in any book or record, or who prepares any document containing a false statement, may, if the conditions laid down in section 463 are satisfied, be guilty of the offence of forgery. However, the Court emphasized that the crucial element that distinguishes fabrication of false evidence, as defined in section 192 of the Indian Penal Code, is the intention that the false circumstance or the false document be produced as evidence in a judicial proceeding, before a public servant, or before an arbitrator, with the purpose of causing an erroneous opinion on a material point that could affect the outcome of the proceeding. Accordingly, the Court held that the offences of forgery and of fabricating false evidence for use in a judicial proceeding are distinct, and that the description of fabricating false evidence for the purpose specified in section 479A does not encompass the offence of forgery. Finally, the Court concluded that the offence punishable under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code can never be brought within subsection 1 of section 479A, and therefore any proceeding against a person who has used a false document dishonestly or fraudulently in any judicial proceeding must be taken under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court observed that when a person was found to have employed a false document dishonestly or fraudulently in any judicial proceeding, the only provision that could be invoked was section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to clarify the correct construction of section 479A of the same Code, the Court referred to an observation made in the earlier decision of Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 501. The quoted passage explained that section 476 is a general rule governing the procedure to be followed in respect of a wide range of offences that affect the administration of justice. However, for certain offences enumerated in sections 193 to 195 and section 471 of the Penal Code, the court before which the person had appeared as a witness and which had disposed of the case alone possessed the authority to lodge a complaint. The Court further noted that the words “and s.71” appearing in the text seemed to have entered by mistake. This observation was consistent with an earlier statement in the same judgment that the discussion of the exclusive operation of section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was limited solely to the offence of intentionally giving false evidence at any stage of a judicial proceeding. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal failed and was dismissed, and it ordered that no costs be awarded, thereby confirming the dismissal of the appeal.