RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL

UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PROJECT TOPIC- Punishment for offences relating to documents given in evidence

SUBMITTED BY
Name - Digaant Awasthi
Semester - 7th
Roll No. - 17051
Group No. - 12

SUBMITTED TO
Dr. Shruti Goyal
Asst. Professor of Law
RGNUL
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Documents given in evidence: Jurisprudential Aspect ............................................................... 6
2.1 Actual production of document in Court................................................................................ 6
2.2 Written complaint................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Pre-requisites of Section 340 ................................................................................................. 7
2.4 Position of State ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Successor in office.................................................................................................................. 8
2.6 Opportunity of hearing to the Accused .................................................................................. 8
2.7 Necessity of Inquiry................................................................................................................ 9
3. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar: A Case Study ................................................... 10
3.1 Brief Summary ..................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Facts-in-brief ....................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Issue Involved....................................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Arguments Advanced ........................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Decision ............................................................................................................................... 12

2
 PUNISHMENT FOR OFFENCES RELATING TO DOCUMENTS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE

- Digaant Awasthi

1. Introduction

In our criminal justice system, evidences are the heart and soul of any decision. Indian
evidence act, deals with evidences, there types, there admissibility, evidentiary value etc.
Whereas the procedural aspect, as to how such evidences to be taken on record,
punishment for wrong or forged evidence, power of court to decide about the genuineness
of an evidence etc., are dealt with by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the instant
case, I shall be discussing the procedural provisions to deal with offences relating to
documents given in evidence in courts. Different types of documents are given in
evidence, like – written statements, official documents, witness statements, Panchnama,
official correspondence etc.
The Indian Evidence Act defines document,1 that the word “produced” will cover every
document that has been filed or put into Court. “Production” of a document in Court is
not the same thing as “giving it in evidence" document produced in Court means one
which is produced for the purpose of being tendered in evidence or for some other
purpose.” A document is “given in evidence when it is handed over by the person
tendering it to the Court, even though on inspection the Court rejects it as evidence for
insufficiency of stamp or want of registration, or returns it to the party producing it and
does not take it on the file.2
The offence must be committed in respect of a document produced or given in a
Proceeding in any Court. The question, therefore, whether it is committed by a party to
the proceeding or any witness becomes irrelevant for the purpose of the Court being the
complainant. The document must be produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in
any Court. Where, therefore, the Magistrate orders an investigation u/s. 156(3) of the
Code and the alleged forged receipt is produced by the accused in the inquiry by the
police and is then seized by them, then the forged document cannot be held to have been
produced in a proceeding before any Court.

1
Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1908
2
Emperor v. Gulabchand Rupji, 1925, 27 Bom LR

3
Where the accused produced a copy of the partnership deal forged by him, the original
partnership deed not having produced, it was held that the bar under 195(1)(b)(ii) was not
attracted. This section has no application to a case in which a document is fabricated prior
to its production.3Supreme Court in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, held that the
prosecution under Section 195 could be initiated only by the sanction of the court and
only if the same appears to be deliberate and conscious4.
Chapter XI of IPC deals with false evidences, fabrication of evidence, destruction of
evidence, which ultimately hampers the justice delivery system. These offences have
tried to mold the judgment of the court and have prevented justice to the innocent people.
These offences related to false evidence are also one of the main reasons behind the delay
in the judgment of cases. Nowadays, there are many new technologies which have made
fabricating false evidence difficult, which eventually has increased the cases of offences
related to it.
According to Indian Penal Code, when a person bound by oath or express provision of
law, to tell the truth, makes a false statement or a statement that he doesn’t believe to be
true or believes to be false is said to give false evidence. False statements or evidence
given by a person can be in written form or otherwise (oral or indicative). The
punishment under IPC for false evidence is imprisonment up to 7 years and also fine5,
whereas outside the court where the person has given false evidence can get
imprisonment up to 3 years and fine. It is a Non-Cognizable offence which means a
person cannot be arrested without warrant. False Declaration is also punishable under
IPC. A person declaring a statement or document falsely which is submitted as evidence
in the court of law is punished6. Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him,
which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or
authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false,
and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching
any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be
punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. The intention behind making

3
Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 CRLJ 1834.
4
(1971) 1 SCC 774
5
Section 194, Indian Penal Code, 1860
6
Section 199, Indian Penal Code, 1860

4
such a false declaration is to alter the decision of the court in spite of knowing that the
declaration given is false. This can be seen in one of the cases, Kumaresan v. State of
Kerala, in which the petitioner has furnished a false declaration regarding his identity, to
issue a new passport, receivable as evidence before police commissioner.
Many people, witnesses tend to destroy, fabricate documents given in evidence in a court
of law. CrPC mandates that no court shall take cognizance of following offences
when those offences are alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to,
any proceeding in any court, except on a complaint in writing of that court, or by such
officer of the court as that court may authorize in writing in this behalf or by some other
court to which that court is subordinate or by a public servant.7 The objective is to
provide safeguard against irresponsible and reckless prosecutions by private individualsin
respect of offences which relate to the administration of justice and contempt of lawful
authority, and to minimize the possibility of needless harassment of litigants by rash,
baseless and vexatious prosecutions at the instance of their opponents.

7
Section 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860

5
2. Documents given in evidence: Jurisprudential Aspect

Prosecution for offences relating to documents given in evidence is dealt with under the
Code of Criminal procedure8. It states that no court shall take cognizance of any offence
relating to furnishing false evidence, false statement, false declaration9 or, false claim,
forgery.10 Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the procedure for
initiating prosecution with respect to the offences affecting the administration of Justice.
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in respect of the offences specified in
section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Where the allegations against the accused is of making a false statement in the Court then
a private complaint cannot be filed at the instance of the opposite party and only the
Court in which the said offence is said to have been committed only can file a complaint
under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure11. Unless the complaint is made by
the competent Officer as specified under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
prosecution cannot further be proceeded with. However, the bar under section 195 (1) (b)
does not apply to the documents which are forged prior to filing of them before the
Court12. Mere delay in preferring a complaint under section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure will not vitiate the proceedings13. The Apex court in its numerous decisions
has made it very clear that, no court of law shall take cognizance of offences relating to
documents given in evidence, except by way of a complaint by a public servant.
2.1 Actual production of document in Court
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah14, clarified that the
bar of Section 195 CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the
said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. It is therefore clear that if an
offence of forgery has already been committed in respect of a document and there after
the said document is produced before the Court, Section 195 CrPC would not bar an

8
Section 195(1)[b], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
9
Section 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, Indian Penal Code, 1860
10
Section 463, Indian Penal Code, 1860
11
Illa Srirama Murthy v. Sanivarapu Satyanarayana and others, 2000 (2) ALD Crl.562
12
Shaik Mahaboob Shareef v. State and another, 1999 (2) ALD 953
13
K.Narahari Pillai v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 AP 51
14
(2005) 4 SCC 370

6
independent prosecution and as such, there will be no need to consider the matter u/s 340
CrPC.
The document in connection with which the offences are alleged to have been committed,
must have been actually produced in Court in the suit in which the offence is said to have
been committed. If the document is not produced in Court but is disclosed in an affidavit
filed therein and is filed in the office of the Translator of the High Court for translation,
no complaint by the Court is necessary.15 The provisions of ss. 195 and 340 do not
circumscribe the power of police to investigate. Section 195 becomes applicable once
investigation is completed. The Court can then file a complaint u/s. 340 on the basis of
FIR and material collected during investigation. The respondent could not be said to be
deprived of the right of appeal as provided u/s. 341. Section 195 is not applicable at the
stage of investigation.
2.2 Written complaint
In the landmark case of M.S. Ahlawat v. state of Haryana16, Supreme Court observed
that,Provisions of S. 195 are mandatory and no Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance
of any of the offences of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in
writing as required under that section. It is settled law that every incorrect or false
statement doesn’t make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution, but requires the
court to exercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in larger interest of the
administration of justice. Section 340 prescribes a procedure as to how a complaint may
be preferred u/s 195 of CrPC. A complaint outside the provision of section 340 cannot be
filed by any civil, revenue or criminal Court under its inherent jurisdiction. The court
shall file a complaint either Suo moto or upon an application.
2.3 Pre-requisites of Section 340
There are two conditions on fulfillment of which a complaint can be filed, firstly, that a
person has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before the Court and, secondly, in the
opinion of the Court it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an enquiry against
such person in relation to the offence committed by him, and both these conditions have
to be fulfilled17. The Court is not bound to make a complaint. Complaint will be made

15
Muniswamy Mudaliar v. Rajaratnam Pillai, 1922 45 Mad 928.
16
AIR 2000 SC 168
17
D.K.Gupta v. Damodar, 2001 (9) SCC 742

7
only if it is expedient in the interest of justice, and not in every case 18. During the course
of enquiry held by the Court under section 340 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
irrespective of the result of the main case, the only question is whether a prima-facie case
is made out which, if unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood of establishing the
specified offence and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such
action19.
2.4 Position of State
In exercise of the powers conferred by 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
Court may issue show cause notice upon the police for making false entries in the case
diary.20 However, a Public Prosecutor has unfettered power in the matter of conducting a
criminal proceeding and even if he makes different statements at different stages of the
proceeding, it would not attract section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure21. Mere
delay in preferring a complaint under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will
not vitiate the proceedings22.
2.5 Successor in office
The successor in office of the Presiding Officer of the Court before whom the
proceedings in or in relation to which the offence was committed, can make a complaint
in respect of the offence.23Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would
be attracted only when offences enumerated in provision have been committed with
respect to document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in
any Court, i.e., during time when the document was in custodia legis24.
2.6 Opportunity of hearing to the Accused
During the course of holding preliminary enquiry by the Court before filing the complaint
before the Magistrate for initiating prosecution proceedings, opportunity of hearing to the
accused is not required to be given.25 When a prosecution witness deposed before the
Court and later files an affidavit stating that whatever he had deposed before the Court
was not true and it was so done at the instance of police, such affidavit is liable to be

18
Iqbal Singh v. Meenakshi, AIR 2005 SC 2119
19
K.Karunakaran v. T V Eachara Warrier, AIR 1978 SC 290
20
Mohd.Zahid v. Government of National Capital Territory, 1998 Cri. L.J. 2908 (SC)
21
N.Natarajan v. B.K.Subbarao, 2003 (2) SCC 76
22
K.Narahari Pillai v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 AP 51
23
Ajaib Singh v. Joginder Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1422
24
Rugmini Ammal v. V.Narayana Reddiar, AIR 2008 SC 895
25
Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 236

8
rejected as once a person is examined as a witness, he cannot be allowed to perjure
himself by deviating from his testimony given in the Court on oath26.
The hon’ble supreme court, about the right of the accused of hearing during preliminary
inquiry, observed that the proceedings under section 340 is not deciding the guilt or
innocence of the accused, but the court only considers, whether it is expedient in the
interest of justice to hold an inquiry relating to an offence affecting administration of
justice. And therefore, the person against whom proceedings were initiated had no right
to participate in the preliminary inquiry.27
2.7 Necessity of Inquiry
Section-340, CrPC provides for an inquiry to be made before any complaint thereunder is
filed by the court. The court will normally hold such inquiry but the section nowhere says
that it is of a mandatory character. If the court is otherwise able to form an opinion about
the necessity, it can certainly dispense with the inquiry. The provisions of section 195 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure are mandatory and the Court has no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing
as required by that section28. Making of a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding
is not sufficient to justify prosecution under section 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code
but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement or
fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of judicial
proceedings. Holding of preliminary inquiry under section 340 (1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is not mandatory if the formation of the opinion is otherwise possible
and the procedure prescribed for trial of warrant cases have to be followed in respect of
the offences under section 195 (1) (b) (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.29

26
Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 4209
27
Prithish v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 236
28
Govind Mehta v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1708
29
Amarsang Nathaji v.Hardhik Harshadbhai Patel, AIR 2016 SC 5384

9
 3. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar: A Case Study

CASE NAME Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of

Bihar and Ors., (2019 3 SCC 318)
CASE DESCRIPTION Criminal appeal No. 211 of 2019

HIGH COURT JUDGMENT DATE 30.03.2017

TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT DATE 22.12.2016

SECTIONS INVOLVED Ss. 193 IPC r/w Ss 195 and 340 CrPC

DATE OF DECISION February 04, 2019.

BENCH Hon’ble Justices A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul

Nazeer
JUDGMENT/ORDER Appeal Disposed

3.1 Brief Summary

In the instant case, an appeal was filed against the order given by High Court of
Judicature at Patna, dated 30.03.2017 in Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2017, whereby the
High Court of Judicature at Patna has allowed the revision petition filed by the
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and set aside the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the learned
Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate- VII, Motihari, taking cognizance of an offence
punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of a private
complaint filed by the appellant.
3.2 Facts-in-brief
I. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the officials of Doordarshan and All India Radio. The
appellant had joined the Doordarshan Kendra, Motihari, as an Engineering Assistant
in the pay scale of Rs.1400/to Rs.2600/.

10
 II. It was contended that the pay scale of Engineering Assistants was revised from
Rs.2000/to Rs.3000/with effect from 01.01.1986, by the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting by its decision dated 15.05.1995.
III. The pay scale of Senior Engineering Assistant was revised from Rs.2000/to
Rs.3275/with effect from 01.01.1986. The appellants contended that the pay scale of
all categories was revised from 01.01.1996, and was fixed between ₹6500 to ₹10500.
IV. The Employees Association of the concerned cadre, upon coming into force of
Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme, had represented for grant of 1st ACP in
the pay scale of Rs. 8000/to 13,500/which was not being allowed, which led to the
filing of an application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. This
gave rise to Original Application No. 514 of 2002. The said O.A. was allowed by the
CAT, by an order dated 07.09.2009.
V. The Union of India challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before the High
Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition with an observation that no
generalized direction could be given for the grant of ACP and the ACP has to be
granted on individual basis. The appellant, thereafter, represented before the
competent authority for grant of 1st ACP, but it was refused.
VI. The appellant, thereafter, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition CWJC
No. 2797 of 2014, which was also disposed of by an order dated 29.06.2014, with a
direction to the respondents therein to pass appropriate order on the representation
filed by the appellant.
VII. Appellant alleged noncompliance of the said order, and filed a contempt petition
before the High Court. In the petition alleging contempt, it was contended that in the
contempt case, the respondents filed an affidavit for the show-cause notice, showing
compliance of the order dated 29.06.2014 of the High Court. Therefore, the contempt
case was dropped.
VIII. The appellant filed a private complaint against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 before the
Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Motihari alleging commission of offence
punishable under Section 193 read with Section 34 of the IPC alleging that because of
the false and wrong statement made by the respondents in their show-cause affidavit,

11
 the High Court dropped the contempt case. The Magistrate by an order dated
22.12.2016 took cognizance of the same and summoned respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
3.3 Issue Involved
Having regard to the contentions urged, the question for consideration is whether the
Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 193
of the IPC on the basis of a private complaint?
3.4 Arguments Advanced
Appellant: Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the contempt petition filed
by the appellant, the respondents had filed false affidavits prepared/forged outside the
court. On the basis of the false affidavits, the High Court dropped the contempt case.
Therefore, the appellant filed a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 193 of the
IPC against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is argued that it was not mandatory to obtain
prior sanction for filing a private complaint under Section 193 of the IPC and that the
complaint filed by the appellant was maintainable. In this connection he has relied on a
decision of this Court in Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (1998)
2 SCC 493.
Respondent: On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits
that the punishment for offence giving false evidence in judicial proceedings is stipulated
in Section 193 of the IPC and the law governing taking of the cognizance of such an
offence is contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. puts a clear
bar on taking of cognizance by a Court, of an offence punishable under Section 193 of
the IPC, unless it is on a complaint in writing of the Court or such officer of the Court as
that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, in relation to a judicial proceeding of
which Court, the offence is alleged to have been committed. Since no such complaint has
been made, the High Court was justified in quashing the order of the Magistrate. in this
connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in M.S. Ahlawat v. State of
Haryana and another.
3.5 Decision
The case in hand squarely falls within the category of cases falling under Section
195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC. as the offence is punishable under Section 193 of the IPC.
Therefore, the Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of a
private complaint. The High Court, in our view, has rightly set aside the order of the

12
Magistrate. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem
it proper to set aside the costs imposed by the High Court.

Our country is governed by rule of law. Offences against public justice has been held to
strike at the very root of the said concept having regard to the system upon which our
government is based. The duty is cast upon the court not only to see that no innocent
person shall be punished, but also to see that no guilty person shall escape on the basis of
false or fabricated evidence. The provision contained in chapter XI of the IPC are the
tools in the hands of the court to perform its duty swiftly. Thus, section 195 and 340 are
to be read together and applied in proper perspective so that the object of section 195,
CrPC, that is, to prevent reckless and irresponsible prosecutions by private individuals in
respect to offences which relate to the administration of justice, can be achieved.

____________________________

13
REFERENCES
Cases
1. Emperor v. Gulabchand Rupji, 1925, 27 Bom LR
2. Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 CRLJ 1834.
3. Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam (1971) 1 SCC 774
4. Illa Srirama Murthy v. Sanivarapu Satyanarayana and others, 2000 (2) ALD Crl.562
5. Shaik Mahaboob Shareef v. State and another, 1999 (2) ALD 953
6. K.Narahari Pillai v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 AP 51
7. Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370
8. Muniswamy Mudaliar v. Rajaratnam Pillai, 1922 45 Mad 928.
9. M.S. Ahlawat v. state of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 168
10. D.K.Gupta v. Damodar, 2001 (9) SCC 742
11. Iqbal Singh v. Meenakshi, AIR 2005 SC 2119
12. K.Karunakaran v. T V Eachara Warrier, AIR 1978 SC 290
13. Mohd.Zahid v. Government of National Capital Territory, 1998 Cri. L.J. 2908 (SC)
14. N.Natarajan v. B.K.Subbarao, 2003 (2) SCC 76
15. K.Narahari Pillai v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 AP 51
16. Ajaib Singh v. Joginder Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1422
17. Rugmini Ammal v. V.Narayana Reddiar, AIR 2008 SC 895
18. Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 236
19. Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 4209
20. Prithish v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 236
21. Govind Mehta v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1708
22. Amarsang Nathaji v.Hardhik Harshadbhai Patel, AIR 2016 SC 5384

Laws
• Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1908
• Section 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 194, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 199, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 463, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 195(1)[b], 340 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

14