- (1.) THIS criminal reference has come up before us in the circumstances set out below: On the 14th September, 1969, P. C. Gupta, Principal of a college at Khurja forwarded a report against Amar Singh alleging commission by him of an offence-under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The report was lodged by P. C. Gupta as a result of information furnished to him by M. L. Mittal, Accountant of the college. Consequent on the first information report, a case was registered against Amar Singh at Police Station Khuria and he was taken into custody by the police. On the 19th September, 1969, Amar Singh was produced before the Judicial Officer Khurja and on that date the Officer passed an order under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -- hereinafter referred to as the Code -- remanding him to custody upto the 2nd October. 1969. On the-20th September, 1969, Amar Singh applied for bail under Section 497 of the Code and was ordered to be released on bail. On the 30th January, 1970 Amar Singh filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Officer, Khuria, accusing P. C Gupta and M. L. Mittal of offences under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint filed by Amar Singh was transferred to the Court of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Khurja, who, after recording the statement of Amar Singh and examining one Jagdish Prasad produced in support of the complaint and P. N. Tewari the Sub-Inspector attached to Police Station Khurja, framed charges against P. C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal under Sections 211 and 109/211 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. P. C. Gupta applied for stay of proceedings before the learned Magistrate but he refused to do so. Against the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate framing charges against them. P. C Gupta filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. It was urged on behalf of the revisionist that Section 195 (1) (b) acted as a bar to the learned Munsif Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the basis of a complaint filed by the Judicial Officer, Khuria, before whom proceedings for remand and bail had taken place, because those proceedings were in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed by P. C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal. Reliance in support of that contention was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Badri v. State 1963 All LJ 334 : 1963 (2) Cri LJ 64. On behalf of the complainant Amar Singh, it was urged on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur that the decision of this Court in 1963 All LJ 334 : 1963 (2) Cri LJ 64 (supra) has been by implication overruled. The learned Sessions Judge held that the authority of this Court in 1963 All LJ 334 : 1963 (2) Cri LJ 64 had not been shaken by the Supreme Court decision in He held that he was bound by the view taken in 1963 All LJ 334 : 1963 (2) Cri LJ 64 and consequently made a reference to this Court recommending that the charges framed by the learned Munsif Magistrate. Khurja be quashed and the proceedings before him be dropped.
(2.) WHEN the reference came up before one of us (Hon'ble C. D. Parekh. J.) for hearing, it appears to have been urged that in view of certain observations made by the Supreme Court in R R. Chari v. State Zof U. P. Narayan Das v. State of West Bengal Gopal Das Sindhi v State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 986 : 1961' (2) Cri LJ 39 and S. N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tewari the Division Bench decision of this Court in 1963 All LJ 334 : 1963 (2) Cri LJ 64 was no longer good law. The learned single Judge being of the opinion that the point raised 'before him was one of importance and likely to be raised in various cases which may be pending or may come up for decision to this Court referred the reference to a larger Bench. By the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the reference has consequently come up before this Full Bench.
(3.) DURING the hearing of the reference before us, learned Counsel appearing for Amar Singh urged firstly that on a proper construction of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code, in order to attract the bar of that provision it was necessary that the offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by P. C. Gupta and M. L, Mittal should have been committed in relation to a proceeding in Court which necessarily meant that at the time when the offence was committed there should have been some proceeding pending in Court. It was further contended that the proceeding contemplated by Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code must be proceedings in which the truthfulness or otherwise of the report lodged by P. C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal was under consideration before a Court. The submission was that since during remand proceedings and in proceedings for grant of bail the authenticity of the allegations made in the first information report lodged by P. C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal was not under enquiry before the learned Judicial Officer. Khurja, the alleged offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code could not be said to have been committed in relation to those proceedings. The first submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for Amar Singh is clearly untenable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (supra ). This decision of the Supreme Court may be usefully considered and analysed in some detail. The facts giving rise to the appeal before the Supreme Court were that on the 10th December, 1958, the appellant M. L. Sethi lodged a report with the Inspector General of Police. Chandigarh, alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 109. 114 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by resnondent R. P. Kapur and his mother-in-law. On the 18th July, 1959, R. P. Kapur. respondent, was taken in custody by the police following investigation in consequence of the report dated 10th December. 1958 lodged by M. L. Sethi. On the 25th July, 1959 the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent for his trial for various offences. There was no material before the Court showing that at any stage between the 10th December, 1958 and 25th July, 1959 any orders had been passed by the Court in connection with the investigation of the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent. In the meanwhile on the 11th April, 1959 the respondent filed a complaint in the Court of a learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Chandigarh, against the appellant for offences under Sections 204, 211' and 385 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant as well as the proceedings instituted by the police against him on the basis of the first information report lodged by the appellant were transferred under orders of the Supreme Court to the Court of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur. On the 10th December, 1962 this Court quashed the proceedings against the respondent. On the 6th August, 1963 and 5th October, 1963 two applications made by the appellant for dismissing the complaint filed against him under Section 211, I. P. C. and for other offences were rejected by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur. A revision filed by the appellant against the orders of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur, dated 6th August, 1963 and 5th October, 1963 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The appellant came up in revision to this Court but it was dismissed by C B. Capoor. J. (See M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur 1965 All WR (HC) 1711. Again the decision of this Court, M. L. Sethi appealed to the Supreme Court under a certificate granted to him. In the circumstances of the case set out above, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the Magistrate at Chandigarh was competent to take cognizance of the complaint filed against the appellant on the 11th April, 1959, in view of the provisions of Section 195 of the Code.;