False Documents, Evidence and Their Production in Court : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Impact

False Documents, Evidence and Their Production in Court : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Impact 

In an important judgment it is held that it is difficult to interpret Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as containing a bar against initiation of prosecution proceedings merely because the document concerned was produced in a court albeit the act of forgery was perpetrated prior to its production in the Court. Any such construction is likely to ensue unsavoury consequences. For instance, if rank forgery of a valuable document is detected and the forgerer is sure that he would imminently be embroiled in prosecution proceedings he can simply get that document produced in any long-drawn litigation which was either instituted by himself or somebody else who can be influenced by him and thereby pre-empt the prosecution for the entire long period of pendency of that litigation. It is a settled proposition that if the language of a legislation is capable of more than one interpretation, the one which is capable of causing mischievous consequences should be averted. Quoting from Gill v. Donald Humberstone & Co. Ltd.5 Maxwell has stated in his treatise (Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn., p. 105) that “if the language is capable of more than one interpretation we ought to discard the more natural meaning if it leads to unreasonable result and adopt that interpretation which leads to a reasonably practicable result”. The clause which was considered contains enough indication to show that the more natural meaning is that which leans in favour of a strict construction, and hence the aforesaid observation is eminently applicable here.

Scope of Preliminary Enquiry under S.340

The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of the Code, 1973 is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis.

The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code, 1973 is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court. 

Forgery of Document

Forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, the same cannot be treated as one affecting administration of justice. Section 195(1)(b) (ii) of Code, 1973 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 i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.

Documents in Court

Noticing the statutory scheme under Section 195 of Code, 1973 has held that where offences has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or given in the evidence in Court, the same is neither covered under Clauses (a), (b)(i) or (b) (ii). 

Case reference is Vishnu Chandru Gaonkar v. N.M. Dessai [2018] GCtR 6666 (SC).