SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RIICO LTD. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 214, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
(2017] l l S.C.R. 214 
SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RIICO LTD. 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
(CriminalAppealNo. 1845 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 03, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 467, 478 and 471 - FIR registered 
by appellant alleging forgery of the letter in question and fraud by 
Respondent No.2 - Final report filed stating that since the said 
let/er was filed in a civil suit filed by Respondent No.2, thus, in view 
of provisions ofs.195(/)(h)(ii) CrPC. the police ca11not investigate 
the matter - Such fi11al report accepted by Chief Judicial Magistrate 
(CJM) -Afier some litigation between the parties wherein the matter 
was remanded back by Revisional Court-Additional Sessions Judge 
(ASJ). CJM eve11tually vidc order dated 20.06.2009 co11sidered the 
matter on merits and held that prima facic 110 case offorging and 
playing ji-aud were made out against the accused-Respondent No.2 
- Revision application filed by the appellant before ASJ, dismissed 
- Said order was challenged by appella11t before High Court by 
E .filing petition u!s.482, CrPC. which was dismissed - On appeal, 
held: CJM in his order dated 20.06.09 as well as the Revisional 
Co11rt had considered the material on record and came to the 
conclusion that 110 prima facie case was made 011t against the accused 
that he has committed any forge1:v or played any fraud- High Court 
also took the sa111e vie1v that no evidence H-'as available on recor(J 
F 
suggesting
that letter i11 q11estio11 was prepared by Respo11dent No. 
2 - No infirmity found in the said order - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - ss.195(/)(b)(ii) and 482. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195(/)(b)(ii) - If 
applicable - Held: Sec/ion 195(/){b){ii) would be attracted only 
G .when /he offe/ll:es enumera/ed in lhe said provision have been 
commiued with respect to a document a.fier it has been produced or 
giFen in eviclence in a proceecling in an.v court - Ho»•ever. in the 
instant case. the allegedly forged letter dtd. JIJ.()4.1992 was flied 
in a civil suit on 27.04.1992 - No case that forgery was committed 
H 
214
SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RHCO LTD. v. THE STATE OF 
215 
RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
ajier the letter was flied in the court - Tims, provision u/:S.195 
A 
(J)(b)(ii) was not attracted. 
· 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I In the 11rescnt case, the letter dated 10.04.1992 
is claimed to be a forged"letter not signed by appellant. The said 
letter was tiled before the Court on 27.04.1992 in a civil suit filed 
B 
by the respondent no.2. There is no case that forgery was 
committed after the letter was tiled in the Court. Thus, provision 
under Section 195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was not attracted. [Para 9] (219-
FJ 
1.2 The Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated C 
20.06.2009 as well as the Revisional Court had considered the 
material on record and came to the conclusion that no prima fi1cie 
case was made out against the accused that he had commitled 
any forgery or played any fraud in forging the document. The said 
order of the Revisional Court was challenged before the High D 
Court and High Court also came to the conclusion that no evidence 
was available on record to suggest that letter dated 10.04.1992 
was prepared by Respondent No. 2. The High Court held that no 
illegality can be found in the order of Revisional Court. No 
infirmity is found in the said view of the High Court [Paras 12, 
131(221-D, GJ 
E 
Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihw· & Anr. 
(1998) 2 SCC 493 : (1998) l SCR 492 - referred to. 
Iqbal Singh Manvah & Am: v. Meenakshi Marwah & 
A11r. (2005)
4 SCC 370 : [2005] 2 SCR 708- followed. 
[ 1998] I SCR 492 
(2005) 2 SCR 708 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
followed 
Para 3 
Paras 
F 
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTJON: Criminal Appeal No. 
G 
1845 of2017. 
From the J uclgment and Order dated 07. 02.2017 by the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition 
No. 320/2012. 
H
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Dr. Manish Sighvi, IrshadAhmad, Shailja Nanda Mishra,Advs. for 
B 
the Appellant. 
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Bhavya Tandon, Ajay 
Kumar Talesara, S. Sarfaraz Karim, Tejasvi Kumar, Ambar Qamaruddin, 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ASHOK BHUSHAN J. 1. This appeal has been filed against 
judgment dated 07.02.2017 of Rajasthan High Court dismissing Single 
Bench Criminal Miscellaneous Petition which was filed by the appellant 
questioning the judgment dated 22.07 .20 l l of Additional Sessions Judge 
C 
dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the appellant. 
D 
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal disclose several stages of 
litigation arising out ofFirst Information Repo1t lodged by appellant dated 
29.04.1992 under Section 420 !PC. 
3. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding 
this appeal arc: 
A letter dated 10.04.1992 was purported to be issued by Regional 
Manager, RIICO, Sriganganagar to the Respondent No. 2 Mis. Kanha 
Refined Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. through Ravi Setia(Partner). The 
E 
appellant who was working as Regional Managerand had allegedly signed 
the above letter when came to know about the letter dated L0.04.1992, 
he asked Respondent No. 2 on 23.04.1992 to produce the original copy 
of the letter within 24 hours. The letter was not produced before the 
office of Respondent No. 2 rather on 27 .04.1992 the letter was
produced 
F 
by his counsel in Suit Case No. 2/84 titled M/s. Kanha Refined Oil and 
Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. Vs. RIICO Limited. On 29.04.1992 the appellant 
filed a First Information Report No. 184 under Section 420 !PC alleging 
that on I 0.04.1992 a letter has been forged by Respondent No. 2 and 
got it dispatched from the office by a Class JV employee, Raghuvir 
Singh on 10.04.1992. It is alleged that by playing fraud, forged and bogus 
G 
document has been prepared by Respondent No. 2 hence, offence under 
Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC arc made out. FIR was registered under 
Section 420. A Final Report was submitted by the Inspector, Police Station 
Kotwali. In the Final Report, it was mentioned that since the letter dated 
I0.04.1992 has been filed in Case No. 2/84, in view of provisions of 
Section !95(1)(b){ii) Cr.P.C. the po,lice cannot investigate the matter. 
H
SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RIICO LTD. v. THE STATE OF 
217 
RAJASTHAN & ANR. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
The Final Report was accepted by the ChiefJudicial Magistrate by order 
A 
dated 22.05.1998, relying on Section 195(1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The appellant 
filed a Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge who vide 
his order d~ted 01.05.2000 set aside the orderofChiefJudicial Magistrate 
and remanded the matter. The Trial Court passed a fresh order granting 
opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The Chief Judicial Magistrate 
afterthc remand again relying on Section I 95(1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. held that 
letter having been filed in civil suit, cognizance cannot be taken. The 
Protest Petition was dismissed and Final Report was accepted. The 
Criminal Revision was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 
12.03.2003. The Rcvisional Court held that the provision of Section 
195( I )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 
The Revisional Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this court 
in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bil1ar &Anr., (1998) 2 
sec 493, where it was held that when the document before producing 
B 
c 
in the Court has been prepared in a forged manner, provision of Section 
195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. cannot be made applicable. The Revisional Court 
set aside the order of subordinate court and directed the court below to 
D 
pass an order in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence available 
on file. 
4.
Operative portion of the judgment is as follows: 
"ORDER 
Hence, by allowing the Revision of the Revisionist, the order 
dated 12.03.:!003 is hereby set-aside and Subordinate Court 
is hereby ordered that it shalt pass an order afresh in 
accordance with law, on the basis of evidence available on 
file and after granting opportunity of hearing lo the 
Complainant. The Case File shall be produced before the-
Subordinate Court on 08.08.2003." 
5. After the order ofRcvisional Com1, the Chief Judicial Magistrate 
again considered the matter and by order dated 20.06.2009 rejected the 
Protest Petition of appellant. The ChicfJudicial Magistrate noticed the 
order of the Revisional Court that benefit of Section 195( l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. 
can not be granted to the accused in the present case. The Chief Judicial 
Magistrate did not rely on Section 195( 1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. rather looking to 
the materials on record came to the conclusion that prima facie case of 
forged document and playing fraud have not been made out against the 
E 
F 
G 
H
218 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] l l S.C.R. 
accused. Aggrieved against the order dated 20.06.2009, a Rcv1S10n 
Application was also filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge 
by the appellant which has been dismissed on 22.07.20 l l. The order 
dated 22.07.2011 was challenged before the High Court by filing a petition 
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by the High Court 
on 07.02.2017 which order is under challenge in this appeal. 
6. Dr. Manish Singhvi. learned counsel for the appellant submitted 
that in the present case the forged letter dated 10.04. l 992 was filed in 
Civil Court on 27.04.l 992 that is subsequent to letter having been forged. 
The provisions of Section l95(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. were not attracted and 
there was no prohibition in law in taking cognizance of the offence. He 
submitted that the Respondent No. 2 was the beneficiary of the letter 
which was addre'8cd to him hence the cou11s below ought to have taken 
cognizance of the offence. He submitted that Courts below committed 
error in not taking cognizance of the offonce. 
7. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 refuting the 
submission of counsel for the appellant contended that present is a case 
where there is no issue pertaining to Section 195( I )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. He 
submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 
20.06.2009 has not dismissed the Protest Petition on the ground of bar 
of Section l 95( l )(b )(ii) Cr.P.C.
rather has after considering the cvi<kncc 
on record held that no primafi1cie case has been made out against the 
Respondent Nci. 2 for taking cognizance of the offoncc. He further 
submitted that from the evidence on record, it is clear that letter was 
dispatched from the ot1iec of Regional Manager and it has further come 
on record that a Class IV employee Shri Raghl1vir Singh of the office 
has dispatched the letter. He submitted that there is no material on record 
to even prima facie suggest that the Respondent No. 2 is involved in 
forging the letter. He submitted that the courts below after considering 
the materials have rightly come to the conclusion that no case has been 
made out lo allow the Protest Petition filed by the appellant. 
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for 
G 
the parties and have perused the record. In so far as, submission of the 
appellant regarding Section 195( l ){b)(ii) Cr.P.C. the law is not well 
settled by the Constitution Bench judgment that Section 195(l)(b)(ii) 
Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the 
said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it 
H
SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RJ!CO LTD. v. THE STATE OF 
219 
RAJASTHAN & ANR. [ASHOK BHUSHAN. J.] 
has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. 
A 
The Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwall & A11r. Vs. Jl.feenakshi 
Marwall & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370 in para 33 & 34 had held: 
"33. Jn view of the discussion made above, we are of the 
opinion thal Sachida Nand Singh (1998) 2 SCC 493 has been 
correclly decided and /he view U1ken therein is the correct B 
vietti Section J9j(J)(b)(ii) CrPC would be affrac1ed only when 
the ojJences e11un1eratecl in the said 11rovision have been 
commitled with respect to a document ajier 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 leg1:s. 
34. Jn the present case, the Will has been produced in the 
court subseq11e11//y. It is nob01~v :~ case that any offence as 
enumerated in Section 195(/)(b)(ii) was committed in respect 
to the said Will after if had been produced or filed in the 
Coun of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 
195(1)(b) (ii) CrPC would not come inlo play and there is no 
embargo on the po1i,er of the corm to take cognizance of the 
offence on !he basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. 
The view taken by the leC1med Additional Sessions Judge C111d 
the High Court is pe1fectly correct and cC1ils for no 
interj'erence.,, 
9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, present is a case 
where letter
dated l 0.04.1992 is claimed to be a forged letter not signed 
c 
D 
E 
by appellant. From the materials on record, it is clear that the said letter 
dated ] 0.04.1992 was filed before the Court on 27.04.1992 in Case No. 
2/84. There is no case that forge1y was committed after the letter was 
F 
filed in the Court. Thus, provision under Section 195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. 
was not attracted. A perusal of the Final Report which was submitted by 
Inspector, Police Station Kotwali, it is clear that the Inspector after 
conducting an investigation ultimately concluded that in view of Section 
195(1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. Police cannot investigate the matter. The Final Report 
is filed as Anncxure P.4. A perusal of which also indicates that the 
G 
Inspector, obtained the Original Letter dated l 0.04.1992 from the Case 
No. 2/84 and had sent writing of the undisputed script and specimen 
script of appellant to handwriting expert and opinion was obtained that 
signatures of S.K. Shanna on letter dated 10.04. 1992 was forged. 
H
220 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 
l 0. After the remand by Revisional Court on 01.05.2000, the Chief 
Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 12.03.2003 again relied on Section 
195( I )(b )(ii) Cr.P.C. for coming to the conclusion that cognizance cannot 
be taken. Criminal Revision was filed against the said order before the 
Revisional Court and Revisional Court vide its judgment dated 21.07 .2003 
has decided the issue of Section 195( I )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The Revisional 
Court held that the provisions of Section 195(1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. arc not 
attracted. The Revisional Court vide its order dated 21.07.2003 set 
aside the order of Subordinate Court and directed the Subordinate Court 
to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the 
evidence on file on merit. Subsequent the order passed by the Rcvisional 
Comt, matter was not carried on any further for the accused. Thus, the 
issue of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. came to an end in favour of the 
appellant. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 20.06.2009 as 
well as the Revisional Court dated 22.07.2011. does not rely on Section 
195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. for rejecting the Protest Petition of the appellant. 
Thus, the submission on the basis of Section 195( l )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. arc 
not relevant for deciding the present appeal. In fact submission raised 
on behalf of the complainant pertaining to non-applicability of Section 
195( 1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. has been accepted by
the Courts below as already 
noted above. Thus, no benefit can be availed by appellant on the strength 
of above submission. 
11. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 20.06.2009 as 
well as the Rcvisional Court has considered the material on record and 
came to the conclusion that no pri111aj£1cie case is made out against the 
accused that he has committed any forgery or played any fraud in forging 
th<' document. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has also referred to the 
Rcpoit No. 37/97. The Revisional Court also after considering all the 
submissions of appellant have dismissed the Revision on merits. It is 
useful to refer to the following observations ofRcvisional Court: 
.. According to the aforesaid offensive elemenls !he Revisionist 
during the course of investigation in his statemen/s recorded 
under Section 161 Cr. P.C. has onZv stated that Ravi Selia in 
order to play fraud prepared !he letter by commitling forger;\ 
whereas the Junior Accounlanl Alar Singh in the office of the 
Revisionist has slated during his statements dated 19.05.1992 
that the alleged letter dated 10.04.1992 has not been 
dispatched by him, rather it has been dispatched by the
SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RIICO LTD. v. THE STATE OF 
221 
RAJASTHAN & ANR. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
Assistant Employee Raghuvir Singh. In this way in the context 
A 
of the writing ~[said lette1; it was necessary to send the writing 
of the Class JV Employee Raghuvir Singh to the Handwriting 
Expert at FSL. Further. the FSL in its Report No. 37197 dated 
31.01.1998 has given this conclusion that the specimen 
signatures ~f the Revisionist and disputed signat11res 11pon 
B 
matching mark Q-1 and Q-2 have been stated to be forged 
one. But in this conclusion it has also been mentioned that it 
has not been established as to these signatures are of whom 
and these signatures would have made by Ravi Selia. In this 
way letter the letter dated 10.04.1992 would have prepared 
by the Respondent No. 2 in a forged manner, at this stage, it 
has not become clear in any manner. Therefore, at this stage, 
there is no ground available for taking cognizance against 
the Respondent No. 2 under Section 467, 468 and 471 l.P.C." 
12. The above orderof the Revisional Court was challenged before 
the High Court and High Court also came to the conclusion that no 
evidence is available on record to suggest that letter dated I 0.04.1992 
wi\s prepared by Respondent No. 2. The High Court held that no illegality 
can be found in the order ofRevisional Court. Although, the Final Report 
was submitted as noted above on the ground relying on Section 
l 95(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. but before submitting the report
investigation was 
conducted by the Inspector. Police Station Kotwali and the materials 
colh!ctcd during the investigation were all referred to in the Final Report. 
Holding that the Section 195(1 )(b )(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the present 
case, the Revision al Court vide its judgment dated 21.07 .2003 has directed 
the court below to pass an order in accordance with law on the basis of 
evidence available. Hence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate looked into the 
materiml on record and came to conclusion that there are no sufficient 
material for taking cognizance against the accused. 
J 3. High Court also took the same view, in which we do not find 
any infirmity. In view of the forgoing discussion, we do not find any 
c 
D 
E 
F 
merit in tihis appeal. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly. 
G 
Divya Pandey 
AppeaJ dismiss~d.