Criminal Appeals Nos
244 246 of 1964
829 Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 19 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc
Applications Nos 1853 3043 and 3044 of 1963
WS Barlingay J C Jalwar and R L Kohli for the appellant in all the appeals
JP Goyal and R B Pathak for respondent No 1 in all the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah J
Kamla Prasad Singh the appellant had filed three complaints in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate Judicial Varanasi for the prosecution of Harinath Singh respondent No 1 under section 218 Indian Penal Code
In each of these complaints Harinath was a co accused with another
In one it was Mangla Prasad Pandey Ahlmad Court of Tahsildar Sadar Varanasi in another it was Ramchander Lekhpal of Village Balua and in the third it was Ram Samravlal Lekhpal of Village Cholapore
In each case Harinath Singh was said to have abetted the offence committed by his co accused
The circumstances in which the complaints were lodged were common and may now be briefly stated
Certain Bhumidari lands in these villages were the property of Nankoo so Mehar Singh and Sumitra widow of one Ajudhia Singh
On December 4 1962 Nankoo sold his half share to Kamla Prasad Singh and some others
Kamla Prasad s com plaint is that Harinath Singh in conspiracy with the two Lekhpals got certain forged entries to be made in the Khasra after the sale in favour of Kamla Prasad and applied for the correction of the Jamabandi
The Ahlmad in conspiracy with Harinath Singh ante dated the said application to November 9 1962 to make it appear that it was made prior to the sale deed and to shield the Lekhpals
The application was entered in the register of Jamaband s as Case No 116 dated November 9 1962 although the case bearing that number was one between Bhagwati Singh and Bhagwati of Birbalpura Kaswal Raja
After the complaints were in Court Harinath Singh filed an application under section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the offence if any was one under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure barred the private complaints
The High Court accepted the application for the above reason and quashing the proceedings against Hari Nath Singh ordered his discharge
In these appeals by certificate the order of the High Court is questioned
The first question is what are the distinct features of section 193 and section 218 of the Indian Penal Code
Section 193 states the 830 punishment for giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial peoceeding or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceeding
Section 191 defines the offence of giving false evidence and section 192 the offence of fabricating false evidence
We may ignore section 191 because here admittedly there is no giving of false evidence as defined in the Penal Code
The offence of fabricating false evidence comes into existence when a person causes any circumstances to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or makes any document containing a false statement intending that such circumstance false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding etc
and so appearing cause an erroneous opinion be formed touching a point material to the result of such proceeding
The offence is a general one and does not specify the person or the kind of document
It may be any person and the fabricated evidence may be in any form
Section 218 on the other hand deals with the intentional preparation of a false record by a public servant with the object of saving or injuring any Person or property
The difference between the two sect tons is clearly noticeable
Section 192 deals with judicial proceeding and the false evidence is intended to be used in a judicial proceeding
Section 218 deals with public servants and there the gist is the intentional preparation of a false record with a view of saving or injuring any person or property
This need not have relation to a judicial proceeding as such
The bar of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was invoked by Hari Nath Singh arises thus
No Court can take cognizance of an offence under section 193 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court except on the complaint in writing of such Court
In these cases Hari Nath Singh is charged with abetment of three offences committed by three public servants namely the two Lekhpals who have caused the preparation of an incorrect Khasra knowing it to be likely that they would thereby cause loss or injury to Kamla Prasad Singh and the other vendees
Hari Nath Singh is charged in the third case with abetment of the act of the Ahlmad who is alleged to have intentionally made a false entry about the case intending that the false entry should be used in a judicial proceeding and wrong opinion be formed about the date of the institution of the proceeding
It will appear from this that the alleged offence committed by the Ahlmad was clearly in or in relation to a proceeding in Court
In fact he made an incorrect entry about a case actually in Court with the intention that the date of the institution of the proceeding may be taken to be November 9 1962 although the case was alleged to be instituted after December 4 1962
83 1 His offence if any be proved against him would fall within section 192
Section 192 deals with fabrication of false evidence to be used in a judicial proceeding so as to cause an erroneous opinion to be formed on a material point
Section 192 therefore completely covers the case against Ahlmad and must cover the case of Hari Nath Singh the alleged abettor
Section 218 Indian Penal Code does not apply in this case because the record was not made with the object of saving or injuring any person or property
The offence of section 192 Indian Penal Code is punishable under section 193 Indian Penal Code and the latter section is one of the sections mentioned in section 195 1  b of the Code of Criminal Procedure the gist of which has been reproduced above
The decision of the High Court was therefore right that the Court could not take cognizance of the offence alleged against the Ahlmad and his abettor because the offence was fabricating of false evidence in a case which was in fact pending and the false entry was made with the object that an erroneous opinion be formed on a material point
Such a case could only be instituted by a Court in which or in relation to which this offence was committed and a private complaint was therefore incompetent
The alleged offence against the Lekhpals and their abettor Hari Nath Singh in the other two cases is of a different order
The offence of section 218 Indian Penal Code is not a minor offence included within section 192
It is a distinct offence which can be proceeded against without the bar of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
There is some resemblance between section 192 and section 21 8 Indian Penal Code because both deal with the preparation of a false record
There the resemblance ceases
Whereas in section 192 the record is prepared for use in a judicial proceeding with the intention that an erroneous opinion be formed regarding a material point the offence in section 218 is the preparation of a false record by a public servant with the intention of saving or injuring any person or property
The intention here was to save the property from the vendees namely Kamla Prasad Singh and others
The offence was complete the moment the false record was made with the said intention and it was not necessary for the completion of this offence that the record should be used in a judicial proceeding so as to cause an erroneous opinion to be formed touching on a point material to the result of such proceeding
In the Ahlmad s case this latter condition was the most important ingredient
In the case of the Lekhpals it was immaterial whether the record would be produced in a judicial proceeding or not so as to cause an erroneous opinion to be formed
The intention was to save the property from the effects of the sale and the preparation of the false record was therefore sufficient from this point of view
In other words the offence of the Lekhpals if any be proved against them would fall within section 218 and not section 192193 of the Indian Penal Code
It may fill in the latter sections if the entry 8 32 can be said to be in or in relation to a Court
This cannot be said of the entries in the Khasra
As section 218 is not named in section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the private complaint of Kamla Prasad Singh could be entertained by the Court and there was no bar
To hold that a record such as is contemplated in section 218 Indian Penal Code is always one intended for use in a Court would put section 218 Indian Penal Code in section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which the Code of Criminal Procedure has not thought of
Therefore section 218 Indian Penal Code must be treated as an independent and distinct offence
There could be a private complaint in respect of an offence under section 218 Indian Penal Code
The result is that the case against Hari Nath Singh of abet ment of the act of the Ahlmad could not begin except on a complaint in writing of the Court concerned
There was no bar to the commencement of the case against Hari Nath Singh and the two Lekhpals on the private complaint of Kamla Prasad Singh
Accordingly Criminal Appeal No 244 of 1964 shall be dismissed
Criminal Appeals Nos
245 246 of 1964 shall be allowed and the concerned cases will be remitted to the Court of first instance for trial according to law
YP Appeal No 244 dismissed Appeals 245 246 allowed


Summary:
The appellant
a private person filed three complaints under section 218 IPC for the prosecution of respondent 1 charging him in each ease with abetment of offences committed by three public servants
In each complaint respondent 1 was a co accused with another in one with an Ahmad of Tahsildar s Court
in another with one Lekhpal and in the third with the another Lekhpal
The Ahmad was alleged 10 have intentionaIIy made a false entry about the case intending that the false entry should be used in a judicial proceeding and wrong opinion be formed the Lekhpals were alleged to have caused the preparation of an incorrect Khasra knowing to be likely that they would thereby cause loss or injury to the appellant
The respondent 1 filed an application under 561 A Cr
PC slating that the offence if any was one under section 193 IPC and the provisions of section 195 Cr
PC barred private complaints which the High Court accepted
In appeal this Court HELD The bar of private complaints applied 10 the case of Ahmad but not to those of Lekhpals
1832 C D The difference between sections 192 and 218 IPC is that the former deals with judicial proceeding and the false evidence is intended to be used in a judicial proceeding while the latter deals with public servants and there the gist is the international preparation of false record with a view of saving or injuring any person or property and need not have relation to a judicial proceeding as such
I830 D Section 192 IPC covers the case against the Ahmad and respondent 1 and the offence is punishable under section 193 IPC which is mentioned in section 1951b Cr
PC No Court can take cognizance of an offence under section 193 except on the complaint in writing of such court
The alleged offence against the Lekhpals and respondent 1 their abettor in the other two cases was of a different order
The offence of section 218 IPC is not a minor offence included within section 192
It is distinct offence which can be proceeded against without the bar of section 195 Cr
The offence was complete the moment the false record was made with the said intention and it was not necessary for the completion of this offence that the record should be used in a judicial proceeding so as to cause an erroneous opinion to be formed touching on a point material to the result of such proceeding
In the Ahmad s case this latter condition was the most important ingredient
831 B C D G