Netar Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

Augustine George Masih, J.

Oral:

This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.5.2010 framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 193, 194, 465, 467, 468 and 201 IPC in a complaint case.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a police officer, in discharge of his official duties investigated case FIR No.437 dated 20.8.2003 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala. During the trial, he appeared as PW-5. In the cross-examination, a statement was made by him inadvertently that he had never obtained MLR of Jasmer Singh from the concerned doctor during investigation of the case. This statement was given on 10.1.2007. The case was finally decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 23.7.2010. Although the accused were convicted but an observation was made therein that there was lapse on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, action is required to be initiated against him. Taking that to be the basis, complaint No.66 dated 18.7.2008 under Sections 193, 194, 465, 467, 468 and 201 IPC has been filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner in which the petitioner has been charged by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 19.5.2010 which has been impugned by him in the present revision petition. He contends that the said order is not sustainable in the light of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which bars the Court from taking cognizance of an offence which has been mentioned therein except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. His contention, thus, is that the present complaint against the petitioner is not competent and the Court could not take cognizance thereof.

On the other hand, counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 vehemently submits that the petitioner had committed the offence for which he has been duly charge-sheeted. As is apparent from the statement given by him in Court that despite those documents being available on the record i.e. MLR, such a wrong statement was given by him. Had that document been taken into consideration during investigation, the respondent-complainant would not have been forced to file a complaint against the other party on whose basis the FIR is registered against the complainant i.e. FIR No.437 dated 20.8.2003. He contends that it was intentionally done by the petitioner and, therefore, the present case is clearly made out against him for which he has been charged and the order deserves to be sustained.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The petitioner has been charged by the trial Court vide the impugned order under Sections 193, 194, 465, 467, 468 and 201 IPC. In the light of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court could only take cognizance of these offences on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate as prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence in Court would be covered under this Section. As it is alleged that the document i.e. the MLR and the application which has been submitted for recording the statement of the injured were available on the record which was not disclosed by him, clearly spells out the commission of the offence. This would go to show that the petitioner had made the statement before the Court and the offence, therefore, was committed during the Court proceedings. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:-

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in subclause (i) or sub-clause (ii),

[except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.]

(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.

(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:

Provided that-

(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;

(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.”

A perusal of the above would indicate that all the offences for which the petitioner has been charged are specifically covered by the provision contained therein which would bar cognizance to be taken by the Court. As there is no complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate nor is there any complaint in writing of the Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf or of some other Court to which the Court is subordinate, the offences as mentioned in the complaint could not have been taken cognizance of by the Court.

If that be so, the charges framed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala framing charges is hereby set aside.