MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals arise out of judgment dated 6.01.2020 in Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 and 1091 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras ('High Court'). Since they involve common facts and question of law, appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5102 of 2020 shall be taken as the leading case.
(3.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: 3.1 The Appellant/Accused No. 1 was working as Regional Manager (South) at Chennai with the Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. On 4.01.2001 case was registered against the Appellant under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'); and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act'). Subsequently, the officers of the Respondent investigative agency conducted search at the Appellant's residence on 24.01.2001 on the basis of search warrant issued by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. During the course of this search, an amount of Rs. 79,65,900/- ('seized currency'), in addition to jewellery and property papers, was seized from the Appellant's residence. Since these assets were found to be disproportionate to the Appellant's known sources of income, on 9.03.2001 a separate disproportionate assets case was registered against him under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. It is this case that forms the factual crux of the present appeal. 3.2 During the course of investigation, Accused No. 2 V.S. Krishnan (Appellant in the connected appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6720 of 2020) and Accused No. 3 Murugesan (Appellant in the connected appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6327 of 2020) wrote letter dated 4.02.2002 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACU-II claiming that the seized currency did not belong to the Appellant/Accused No. 1. They contended that Accused No. 2 had entered into agreement of sale dated 24.01.2001 to purchase properties from Accused No. 3, for which a sum of Rs 80 lakhs was to be paid in advance. Since Accused No. 2 was not available on that date for execution of the written agreement, he had entrusted the seized currency, along with a duplicate copy of the agreement signed by him, to the Appellant. The agreement was to be executed by Accused No. 3 in the presence of Appellant. However, since the Appellant's house was raided on that date, the money could not be paid and the agreement of sale could not be executed. Hence Accused Nos. 2 and 3 sought recovery of the seized currency. Accused No. 2 produced the purported sale deed dated 24.01.2001 (in duplicate) typed out on stamp paper before the Investigating Officer in support of their claim. He also produced certain books of accounts to show that he had financial capacity to purchase the properties from Accused No. 3, in which entry was made on 20.01.2001 pertaining to payment of advance price of Rs 80 lakhs to Accused No. 3. However, pertinently, the Appellant had not taken any such defence at the time of search conducted in his house on 24.01.2001, nor had he produced the duplicate sale deed before the officers of the Respondent agency at that time. 3.3 Investigation conducted by the Respondent revealed that the market value fixed by the State Government in respect of the two properties described in sale deed dated 24.01.2001, was much below Rs 80 lakhs. Further, that the first property was equitably mortgaged with the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. since 4.9.1998; whereas a portion of the second property had already been sold to other persons. That the license of Accused No. 4 stamp vendor S. Mohankumar, through whom the stamp papers of the sale deed were issued on 11.01.2001, was cancelled on 7.10.1992. No stamp paper of any denomination had been issued to him during the period of 1998 to 2001. Therefore, the Respondent's claim is that the Appellant conspired with Accused Nos. 2-4 to fabricate false deed of agreement for sale for the purpose of being shielded from legal action in the disproportionate assets case. Accordingly, the Learned Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai ('Trial Court') framed charges against the Appellant and Accused Nos. 24 under Section 120B read with Section 193 of the IPC, in addition to charges under the PC Act already framed against the Appellant. Accused No. 4 died during the pendency of trial. No objection was raised by the accused at the stage of taking of cognizance. However, during the course of trial, the Accused argued that complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') was necessary for prosecuting the case under Section 193, IPC. The Trial Court rejected this argument by referring to the opinion of the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another v. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, (2005) 4 SCC 370. Furthermore, based on the evidence on the record, the Trial Court found that it was not proved that Accused No. 2 had entrusted the seized currency to the Appellant for holding in escrow till completion of sale transaction by Accused No. 3. Hence, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act; as well as Sections 120B and 193 of the IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and payment of fine of Rs 1.5 lakhs. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted under Sections 120B and 193 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and payment of fine of Rs 1 lakh each. 3.4 In appeal before the High Court, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 reiterated that the requirements of Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and 340 of the CrPC were not complied with prior to framing of charge under Section 193, IPC. Therefore, framing of charge without conduct of inquiry and making of written complaint by the Trial Court was illegal and without jurisdiction. The High Court rejected this contention and held that the procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) is only mandatory in offences which directly affect administration of justice, i.e. pertaining to documents which are custodia legis. Thus, the offence must be committed after a document is produced in evidence before the Court. Therefore Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and 340, CrPC will not be applicable in the present case where documents were fabricated during the investigative phase prior to their production during before the Trial Court. The High Court relied upon the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Sachida Nand Singh and Another v. State of Bihar and Another, (1998) 2 SCC 493, and the later Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) which affirmed the view taken in Sachida Nand Singh, while laying down its opinion. Though these decisions were rendered in the context of interpreting Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, the High Court held that Section 195(1)(b)(i) is analogous to the former provision. Hence the observations made in the aforementioned decisions are equally applicable to the present case. On merits, the High Court confirmed the Trial Court's finding that the Accused had conspired to fabricate false evidence for shielding Appellant/Accused No. 1 from prosecution in the disproportionate assets case. However, taking into consideration the advanced age of the Accused and the long passage of time since taking of cognizance of the case, the sentences awarded to the Accused were reduced. Nevertheless, the Accused have come before us in the present appeals challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court. ;