- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
In Re: Gopal Sidheshvar
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was being tried before Mr. Artal for offences under Section 466 (forgery) and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate held that sanction was necessary as to the allegation under Section 471 but held that sanction was not necessary for the offence under Section 466. The matter was placed before the revisional court to revise the Magistrate's order excluding the need for sanction in respect of Section 466. The alleged forged document had been produced in a Court of justice.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Clause (c) of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to an allegation of forgery under Section 466 when the document alleged to be forged has been produced in a Court of justice.
- Whether the "production" of a document in a Court is the same as "giving it in evidence" for the purposes of Clause (c) of Section 195 CrPC.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the document alleged to have been forged was produced in a Court of justice and therefore Clause (c) of Section 195 CrPC must apply. It rejected the Magistrate's construction equating "production" with "giving it in evidence," explaining that they are not the same. The court interpreted "produced in a Court" to mean a document produced for the purpose of being tendered in evidence or for some other purpose. On that basis, the court concluded that sanction was necessary for the complaint under Section 466.
Holding and Implications
The Magistrate's proceedings in the matter of the complaint under Section 466 are quashed.
Direct effect: the complaint proceedings under Section 466 have been quashed, but the order does not preclude fresh proceedings after sanction has been obtained. The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond this direct effect.
1. It appears that the petitioner is being tried before Mr. Artal for the offences described in Section 466 (forgery) and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate has allowed the petitioner's point that sanction is necessary as to the latter but he holds that it is not for the former. We are asked in revision to revise the latter order of the Magistrate. The document which the petitioner is alleged to have forged having been produced in a Court of justice, Clause (c) of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, must apply to it. We cannot accept the construction put upon the clause by the Magistrate who thinks that the "production" of a document in a Court is the same thing as " giving it in evidence". They are not. A document produced in a Court means one which is produced for the purpose of being tendered in evidence or for some other purpose. Sanction was, therefore, necessary for the purposes of the complaint of the offence under Section 466. Accordingly we quash the Magistrate's proceedings in the matter of the complaint under Section 466. This order will not preclude fresh proceedings being instituted after sanction has been obtained.
Alert