SECTION 195 AND 340 CRPC NOT APPLICABLE 2012 SC Justice B.S. Chauhan, and Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar of the Supreme court of India in the case of Ram Dhan vs State Of U.P.& Anr Decided on 10 April, 2012 h eld as follows "Be that as it may, the chargesheet has been filed under Section s 177, 181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC. Section 177 IPC deals with an offence furnishi ng false information. Section 181 IPC deals with false statement on oath. Sectio n 182 IPC deals with false information with intent to cause public servant to us e his lawful power to the injury of another person. Section 195 IPC deals with g iving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment. At least the provisions of Sections 177 and 182 deal with the cases totally outside the court. Therefore , the question of attracting the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. are not attracted. Section 195 IPC makes fabrication of false evidence punishable. I t is not necessary that fabrication of false evidence takes place only inside th e court as it can also be fabricated outside the court though has been used in t he court. Therefore, it may also not attract the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P. C." Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hema Reddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417. In the said decision at page 1424 it is observed, which reads as under :- "The underlying purpose of enacting Section 195(1) (b) and (c) and Section 4 76 seems to be to control the temptation on the part of the private parties cons idering themselves aggrieved by the offences mentioned in those sections to star t criminal prosecutions on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds inspired by a revengeful desire to harass or spite their opponents. These offences have been selected for the court's control because of their direct impact on the judi cial process. It is the judicial process, in other words the administration of p ublic justice, which is the direct and immediate object or victim of these offen ces and it is only by misleading the courts and thereby perverting the due cours e of law and justice that the ultimate object of harming the private party is de signed to be realised. As the purity of the proceedings of the court is directly sullied by the crime the Court is considered to be the only party entitled to c onsider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party. The private pa rty designed ultimately to be injured through the offence against the administra tion of public justice is undoubtedly entitled to move the court for persuading it to file the complaint. But such party is deprived of the general right recogn ized by Section 190 Cr.P.C. of the aggrieved parties directly initiating the cri minal proceedings." The Supreme Court in a decision in the matter of M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryan a, reported in (2000)1 SCC 278 has observed which reads as under:- "Section 340 CrPC prescribes the procedure as to how a complaint may be preferred under Sect ion 195 CrPC................. It is in respect of such offences the court has ju risdiction to proceed under Section 340 CrPC and a complaint outside the provisi ons of Section 340 CrPC cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or criminal court under its inherent jurisdiction." N. Natarajan v. B.K.Subha Rao, reported in AIR 2003 SC 541 as well as the decisi on in the matter of M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2004 SCC (C ri.) 118, which reads as under:- "In respect of offences adverted to in Section 195, Cr.P.C. there is a restriction that the same cannot be entertained unless a complaint is made by a court because the offence is stated to have been commit ted in relation to the proceedings in that Court. Section 340, Cr.P.C. is invoke d to get over the bar imposed under Section 195, Cr.P.C." "Sections 195 and 340 do not control or circumscribe the power of the police to investigate under the Criminal Procedure Code. Once investigation is completed t hen the embargo in Section 195 would come into play and the court would not be c

ompetent to take cognizance. However, that court could then file a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during investiga tion provided the procedure laid down in Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure C ode is followed." Justice D Trivedi, and Justice K Mehta of Gujarath High Court in case of Ajit D . Padiwal v. State of Gujarat and Anr., [2005] 46 (1) G.L.R. 743 In light of the various decisions of the Apex Court, which we have referred to, the position of law can be deduced as under:(i) Where an accused commits some offences which are separate and distinct from those contained in Section 195, Section 195 will affect only the offences mentio ned therein unless such offences formed an integral part so as to amount to offe nces committed as a part of the same transaction, in which case the other offenc es also would fall within the ambit of Section 195 of the Code. (ii) If the other offences which are not included under Section 195 are all toge ther distinct offences and are in no way inter-related with each other then perh aps the court may be justified in taking cognizance so far as those offences are concerned and can proceed with a trial. (iii) The provisions of Section 195 cannot be evaded by the device of charging a person with an offence to which that Section does not apply and then convicting him of an offence to which it does, upon the ground that such latter offence is a minor offence of the same character, or by describing the offence as being on e punishable under some other section of the IPC, though in truth and substance the offence fall in the category of sections mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. (iv) Merely by changing the garb or label of an offence which is essentially an offence covered by the provisions of Section 195 prosecution for such an offence cannot be taken cognizance of by mis-describing or by putting a wrong label on it.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful