MT KETKI KUNWAR Vs. SHEO NARAIN JAFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notices have been issued to Sheo Narain Jafa, an advocate of Budaun, Ghasa Singh and Nathu Lal to show cause why a complaint should not be filed against them in a criminal Court charging them with having committed offences under Secs.193, 120 (b) and 209, read with Section 109, I.P.C. Notice was also issued to Makhan Singh to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for having committed offences punishable under Secs.120 (b) and 209, read with Section 109, I. P.C.

(2.) These applications arose out of P. A. No. 147 of 1927, which was heard and decided by a Bench of this Court on 22 January, 1931. That Bench made very strong observations against all the four respondents. The Court found in the civil appeal that there had been a conspiracy by all of them to deprive one Manohar Singh of his property, and in accordance with that finding, avoided a deed of gift executed by Manohar Singh in favour of Nathu Lal and Makhan Singh, and also a sale deed executed by the same parties. The Court also set aside a decree of 12th November 1923 in Suit No. 201 of 1923 which was a suit by Nathu Lal and Makhan Lal, vendees, against Manohar Singh for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the property compromised in the said sale deed. The facts arising in this case are fully set out in the judgment of this High Court in First Appeal No. 147 of 1927, and it is unnecessary for us to detail fully those facts again. We have to consider whether there is a prima facie case established against all or any of the respondents which would make it obligatory on us to order their prosecution under Section 476, coupled with Section 195, Criminal P.C. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sheo Narain Jafa did not take any preliminary objection; but counsel on behalf of the others have objected that this Court has no jurisdiction to order the prosecution of their clients. The objection is based upon Section 195, Criminal P.C. That section enacts that no Court shall take cognizance, (sub-C1. b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely, Secs.193, 194, 195, 190 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, 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 or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.

(3.) With the exception of Section 120 (b) the sections comprised in this notice are included in sub Clause (b), Section 195. Clause (4) also brings in Clause (1) (b), the charge under Section 120 (b). It is clear that the alleged offences were not committed in this Court, and it is contended therefore that this Court has no jurisdiction to order the prosecution of the respondents. It is however, to be noted that the sub-clauses does not apply merely to offence committed in "such Court" but apply also to offences "committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court." It is obvious that the offence charged under Section 209, read with Section 109, was not committed even in the trial Court. It cannot be denied that that offence was committed in relation to the proceeding in the trial Court. It is therefore in our opinion also clear that the offence under those sections was also committed in relation to the appeal which was heard in this Court. There is no reason to construe narrowly the words "in relation to." Equally the offence of perjury, although it was undoubtedly committed in the trial Court, must in our view, be held to have been committed in relation to the appeal in this Court. A person committing perjury in a trial Court must be held to have intended that his perjury should not only influence the proceedings in the trial Court", but also subsequent proceedings which might take place if either party to the case in the trial Court took the matter to appeal.