S.195 of CrPC does not hinder S.193 of IPC for the prosecution of presenting false evidence: Supreme Court
Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC will not bar prosecution by the investigating agency for offence punishable under Section 193, IPC, which is committed during the stage of investigation. A bench comprising of Mohan M. Shantanagoudar J. and Vineet Saran J. have answered the question of law of whether there was an overlapping of certain words across sections 193 IPC and S. 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC, and whether they encompass production of false evidence at a certain stage of judicial proceedings in Bhima Razu Prasad Vs. State, rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE/ACUII [Criminal Appeal No. of 2021 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5102 of 2020] 
The various accused parties were involved in an agreement of sale dated 24.01.2001 to purchase properties from the other, 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. The accused no.2 also presented documents to present his financial capability to purchase the property. 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; following which the appeal lay before the Court.
The Court framed the contended question of law as, whether an offence under Section 193, IPC committed at the stage of investigation, prior to production of the false evidence before the Trial Court by a person who is not yet party to proceedings before the Trial Court, is an offence in relation to a “proceeding in any court” under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC? 6.2 Whether the words “stage of a judicial proceeding” under Explanation 2 to Section 193, IPC can be equated with “proceeding in any court” under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC? 
The court turned to the decision in Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Prasad Vassudev Keni and Others [AIR 2020 SC 4247] wherein it was noted that it was important that once these Sections of the Indian Penal Code are attracted, the offence should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. Thus, it was made clear that the offence punishable under these Sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court. The court in relation to the second question of equating the terms “proceeding in any court” and “stage of a judicial proceeding” concluded that, “It can be seen from the above discussion that this Court has, in some instances, opined that where the law deems proceedings before a certain authority to be “judicial proceedings”, the same would be considered as “proceedings in any court” under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC. Therefore, if the offence under Section 193, IPC is committed before such an authority, the written complaint of that authority is mandatorily required for trial of the offence.”
3.1 The Appellant Accused No. 1 was working as Regional 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 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in addition to jewellery and property papers was seized from the Appellant’s residence. Since these assets were found to be 2020) wrote letter dated 4.02.2002 to the Superintendent of Police CBI ACU­II 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 agreement he had entrusted the seized currency along with a The agreement was to be executed by Accused No. 3 in the raided on that date the money could not be paid and the Accused No. 2 produced the purported sale deed dated 24.01.2001typed out on stamp paper before the of Rs 80 lakhs to Accused No. 3. However pertinently the Investigation conducted by the Respondent revealed much below Rs 80 lakhs. Further that the first property was since 4.9.1998 whereas a portion of the second property had No. 4 stamp vendor S. Mohankumar through whom the stamp on 7.10.1992. No stamp paper of any denomination had been Nos. 2­4 to fabricate false deed of agreement for sale for the purpose of being shielded from legal action in the Special Judge for CBI Cases Chennai framed charges against the Appellant and Accused Nos. 2­4 under Section 120B read with Section 193 of the IPC in addition to 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 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 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 120B and 193 of the IPC and sentenced him to rigorous of the CrPC were not complied with prior to framing of charge under Section 193 IPC. Therefore framing of charge without Court was illegal and without jurisdiction. The High Court rejected this contention and held that the procedure under 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 during the investigative phase prior to their production during The High Court relied upon the decision of a three­Judge State of Bihar and Another 2 SCC 493 and the later Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah 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 for shielding Appellant Accused No. 1 from prosecution in the disproportionate assets case. However taking into consideration before us in the present appeals challenging the impugned Learned senior counsel Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil and appearing for the Appellants Accused have forcefully argued Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah will not be applicable to the present case. They have relied upon Bandekar Brothers AIR 2020 SC 4247 in support of their contentions. Thus they have stressed that there is an absolute bar against taking of cognizance for the offences specified under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC by any means except upon written complaint by the concerned Court. This is even if the offence of giving false proceedings before a Court of law. Therefore the prosecution lodged by the Respondent agency against the Accused under Per contra learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent Ms. Aishwarya Bhati has sought to distinguish Bandekar Brothers and other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the the particular facts of those cases and will not apply to the Before we proceed further we must first consider the of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code namely sections 193 to 196199 200 205 to 211and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court ii) of any offence described in section 463 or 476 of the said Code when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document to commit or the abetment of any offence specified in writing in this behalf or of some other Court to means a Civil Revenue or Criminal Court and taking cognizance of offences against the administration of prosecutions by private parties. The provisions of this Section entitled to raise grievance in relation to perjury forgery of suitability of making a complaint for such offences. However i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) inasmuch as Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is restricted to offences which are committed in respect of a in any court”. Whereas Section 195(1)(b)(i) applies to offences against public justice which are committed not only in any Whether such semantical difference bars the analogous application of precedents relating to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) for Section 340 CrPC prescribes the procedure to be “340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.—(1) When upon an application made to it in in that Court or as the case may be in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court such Court may after such preliminary inquiry if any as it thinks necessary c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged offence is non­bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to 4) In this section “Court” has the same meaning as Court in State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh 12 SCC 96 has referred the question of whether it provide opportunity of hearing to the would­be­accused under Section 340 CrPC prior to making a complaint under Section 195 for consideration of a larger Bench. Therefore we shall be Court was required under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC in the present case without delving extensively into the aspect of under Chapter XI under the heading “Of False Evidence and “192. Fabricating false evidence. Whoever causes document or electronic record containing a false statement intending that such circumstance false before a public servant as such or before an arbitrator and that such circumstance false entry or false statement so appearing in evidence may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an 193. Punishment for false evidence. Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding or fabricates false evidence for either description for a term which may extend to Explanation 2: An investigation directed by law is a stage of a judicial proceeding though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Appellant Accused No. 1 and recover the seized currency at the have erroneously opined that the seized currency belonged to Accused No. 2 and consequently abandoned proceedings under Section 13(1)(e) PC Act against the Appellant. Therefore Section our consideration in these appeals is whether the investigating agency under Section 193 IPC production of such evidence before the Trial Court This in turn requires us to resolve the Whether an offence under Section 193 IPC committed at the stage of investigation prior to production of the false evidence before the Trial Court by a person who is not yet party to proceedings before the Trial Court is an offence “in relation to” a proceeding in any court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC equated with “proceeding in any court” under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC Before answering the questions stated in paragraph 6 this Court which have considered similar issues arising under ii) CrPC is applicable to documents which are forged prior to read with Section 340(1) CrPC will only apply in respect of offences which are committed during the time when the document concerned was custodia legis or in the custody of the “5. The contention of the appellants is that if the after its production in court. In other words according to the appellants the decisive event for for obvious reasons. Section 190 of the Code cognizance of “any offence” upon receiving a own knowledge. Section 195 restricts such general extent curtailed. It is a well­recognised canon of interpretation that provision curbing the general interpretation unless the statute or the context b)(ii) as containing a bar against initiation of prosecution proceedings merely because the the act of forgery was perpetrated prior to its production in the Court. Any such construction is likely to ensue unsavoury consequences. For instance if rank forgery of a valuable document is detected and the forgerer is sure that he would he can simply get that document produced in any long­drawn litigation which was either instituted by him and thereby pre­empt the prosecution for the is capable of more than one interpretation the one causing mischievous is capable of of “Provisions as to offences affecting the appellates. So the offences envisaged in Section offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that involving forgery of a document if committed far affecting administration of justice merely because 13. The three­Judge Bench of this Court in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai case 2 SCC 376 : 1971 the corresponding section in the old Code in almost the same manner as indicated SC 1935] related to the applicability of that sub­ section to a case where forged document was produced in a suit by a party thereto and subsequently a prosecution was launched against with the right to complain may therefore be appropriately considered to be only those offences the commission of which has a reasonably close nexus with the proceedings in that court so that it can without embarking upon a completely of prosecuting the delinquent party. It therefore appears to be more appropriate to adopt the strict 14. After stating so their Lordships proceeded to to extend the prohibition in the sub­section to offences committed by a party to the proceedings Lordships any construction to the contrary would recognized in Section 190 of the Code.” Aforementioned observations of this Court in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai as cited in Sachida Nand Singh supra) make the import and purpose of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC clear. The provision is intended to bar the right to initiate This would certainly be the case if the document was in the custody of the Court at the time of commission of offence However the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) cannot be read as The same would not have a “reasonably close nexus” with the Though these observations in Sachida Nand Singh were prohibition contained in Section 195(1)(b)(i) should not be The view taken in Sachida Nand Singh was share in the disputed property. Since the respondents’ application under Section 340 CrPC was not disposed of they Sections 192 and 193 as well as Sections 463 and 471 IPC. The Metropolitan Magistrate in that case held that both Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and CrPC operated as a bar against taking Court relying on Sachida Nand Singh held that the bar under was committed before producing the said document in court However it was noticed that Sachida Nand Singh appeared to conflict with an earlier three­Judge Bench decision in Surjit Singh and Others v. Balbir Singh 3 SCC 533. Surjit Singh had held that the bar against taking cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would apply even if the offences stipulated therein were committed prior to production of the document “10…This being the scheme of two provisions or such which has direct bearing or affects the servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice the expression in respect of a document produced or given in clause should normally mean commission of produced or given in evidence in the court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in court does not This indicates that clause contemplates a committed should be of such type which directly affects the administration of justice viz. which is to a document at a time prior to its production or giving in evidence in court cannot strictly speaking touching the controversy in dispute which were rendered on Section 195 of the Code of Criminal 14. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh considered the scope of the 195(1) applies only to cases where an offence is committed by a party as such to a proceeding to any court in respect of a document which has been was held that an offence which has already been till say 30 years after the commission of the offence cannot be said to have been committed by a party within the meaning of clause only if there is a reasonable relation to a proceeding in that court in case of offences specified in clause [of the old Code corresponding to clause CrPC] because of the In case of offences specified in clause they are the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh and held as under in “(i) The underlying purpose of enacting Sections 195(1)(b) and and Section 476 seems to be to control the temptation on the part of the private parties to start criminal prosecution on frivolous vexations or insufficient grounds inspired by a These offences have been selected for the court s It is the judicial process or the administration of public justice which is the direct As the purity of the proceedings of the court is to be the only party entitled to consider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party The private party who might ultimately suffer can argument of learned counsel for the appellants is Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh. The facts as stated in paras 1 and 11 of the Report show that a criminal 420 467 468 471 read with 120­B IPC alleging that the appellants had conspired and fabricated an agreement dated 26­7­1978 and had forged the suit on 9­2­1984 wherein they produced the noticed Gopalakrishna Menon 4 SCC 240 Patel Laljibhai. Reference was then made to and Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana 136 : AIR 1988 SC 419 would not apply if the original document had not been produced or given in evidence in court. Then be understood as laying down anything contrary to what has been held in Patel Laljibhai but was made ii) would not be attracted unless the original very next paragraph after observing that the suit and the original agreement in court the view taken by the High Court that the Magistrate could 20. Since the object of deletion of the words “by a party to any proceeding in any court” occurring in Section 195(1)(c) of the old Code is to afford on the said provision in the earlier decisions would the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be document after it has been produced or given in time when the document was in custodia legis.” Curiously though the facts of Iqbal Singh Marwah also on this point. This was perhaps because the limited point for nevertheless be seen that the Constitution Bench did not interpret Section 195(1)(b)(ii) in isolation but linked its construction with the overall scheme under Sections 195(1)(b and 340 CrPC. The Court reiterated the test laid down in Sachida Nand Singh i.e. that the offence in respect of which direct correlation to or a direct impact on proceedings before a The Court further noted that the situation wherein the offence as enumerated under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) has been Even in Surjit Singh this Court had held on the facts of that Similar to Sachida Nand Singh the Constitution Bench in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai on Sections 192(b) and 192(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 of the 1898 Code corresponding to Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC) the offence in any Court” which appears in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC but is to encompass situations wherein false evidence has been fabricated prior to being produced before a Court of law for the appellants in that case claimed that the respondents accused had given false evidence and forged debit notes and books of initially filed application under Section 340 CrPC before the relevant Judicial Magistrate. However they later sought to convert this into private complaints in reliance upon Iqbal “13. The point forcefully argued by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants is that his clients being victims of forgery ought not to be in a court proceeding and that therefore a private complaint would be maintainable in the fact circumstance mentioned in the two criminal complaints referred to hereinabove. The Court has thus to steer between two opposite poles of a from frivolous criminal complaints and the “yang” and have the Court try the offence of forgery by frivolous litigation or whether it falls within the individual s right to pursue a private complaint we 193 IPC and the offence of forgery. It noted that the averments Brothers upheld the respondents’ contentions and opined that Iqbal Singh Marwah would not benefit the appellants in that Court it was by the appellants’ own admission created “in 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of complaint attracts the provisions of Section 191 to the Code of Criminal Procedure applies. What is important is that once these Sections of the Indian Penal Code are attracted the offence should be alleged to have been committed in or in relation to that the offence punishable under these Sections in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to 22. Contrasted with Section 195(1)(b)(i) Section of offences described in Section 463 and punishable Code when such offences are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or be committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis and not an offence that may have vital in understanding the sheet anchor of the Appellant s case namely this Court s judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah would not have blanket application to Brothers this was not a situation in which the offence court proceedings. The offence of giving false evidence was committed by the respondents who were party to the court proceedings for the purpose of leading the Court to form an erroneous opinion on a point material to the result of the 11. Similar circumstances were present in Kailash Mangal v 15 SCC 729 and Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar and Others 3 SCC 318 which were the decisions relied upon by this Court in Bandekar Brothers IPC. Since the or in a proceeding in a civil court the case of Iqbal Therefore this Court expressly observed in Kailash proceeding which was already pending before the court the proceeding for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. The requirement of reasonable nexus between the offence and the In Narendra Kumar Srivastava supra) the appellant had filed a private complaint contending that the Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC covers a different category of offence and is therefore distinct from Section 195(1)(b)(ii). Hence Sachida Nand Singh would not be applicable and complaint. However on the facts of that case this was again a situation wherein at the first instance the Court was allegedly persuaded to form an opinion based on certain false evidence Indeed at this juncture it must be noted that even were rendered in the context of balancing the right of private protecting parties to civil suits from frivolous or vexatious the right of an investigative agency such as the Respondent in fabricated false evidence during the course of criminal Nos. 6 & 6.1 is whether offence committed under Section 193 IPC during the stage of investigation prior to commencement of who is not yet party to proceedings before the under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC The construction of the words “in relation to” must be controlled by the overarching principle applicable to Section 195(1)(b) CrPC as stated in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah the offence of fabricating false evidence prior to its production 1) subsequently becomes a party and produces it before the Court or for the purpose of causing the Court to form an erroneous equally possible that even if the fabricated evidence appears sufficiently convincing the investigating agency may drop proceedings against the accused and divert its time and light that the evidence was falsely adduced it will be the agency and not the Court which is the aggrieved party in such In this regard we consider it beneficial to refer to the portion of the opinion expressed by the Constitution Bench in of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC was necessary to avoid “23…Before filing of the complaint the court may effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document but having regard to the effect or impact such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like but such or given in evidence in court where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants would render the victim of such forgery or forged 24. There is another consideration which has to be kept in mind. Sub­section of Section 340 CrPC contemplates holding of a preliminary enquiry made during the pendency of the proceeding before the court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded and the final judgment is trying the complaint to adjourn the hearing of the case if it is brought to its notice that an appeal is proceeding out of which the matter has arisen. In out of civil suits where decisions are challenged in whereby hearing of the case is adjourned until the actual trial of the offender for an unusually long to his advantage as witnesses become reluctant to give evidence and the evidence gets lost. This the broad interpretation sought to be placed upon courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is rarely adopted. It will not be fair and proper to give an interpretation which leads to a situation where a person alleged to have committed an offence of the complaint is filed the same does not come to its logical end. Judging from such an angle will be in impracticable result should be avoided…” complaints under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC upon application made by the concerned investigative agencies than in those Therefore the aforementioned reasons assigned by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah for adopting a narrow construction of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC may not be strictly applicable in the present case. However the general principles of statutory interpretation laid down by the given that the Court did not consider Section 195(1)(b)(ii separately but provided a holistic view of the scheme under 17.1 Just like a private party who has been a victim of forgery committed outside the precincts of the Court the with the investigation process. Moreover the present case Act. Public interest and the reputation of the State will suffer parties in hiding their assets from scrutiny. Hence any 17.2 The application of the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC to situations such as the present case can lead to two scenarios. The first is one in which the investigative agency on the basis of false fabricated material drops the case falsified. Second the investigative agency at that very stage suspects that the material produced before them is bogus or forged in nature. In both scenarios the Court has not had an for lodging a complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) read with Section 340 CrPC when the evidence alleged to have been falsified is not even present on its records. Rather it is the investigating agency which is best placed to verify and prove 17.3 In case the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) is applied to may think it fit to wait till the completion of trial to evaluate the alleged fabrication of evidence during investigation has not had any material impact on the trial and decline to initiate prosecution for the same. The investigation agency cannot be hide the original crime. Further irrespective of the potential transparent probe into a criminal offence. Thus we are of the view that it would be impracticable to insist upon lodging of It must be clarified that the aforementioned opinion expressed by us is limited to factual situations such as the been initiated in the first place. The same may not apply for example where the investigation agency on the basis of false person other than the real perpetrator for a particular offence Subsequently the Court during the course of trial proceedings may take judicial notice of such defect in the investigation rise to much difficulty. However at this juncture we decline to In this regard we also find it necessary to distinguish the three­Judge Bench decision of this Court in Arvindervir themselves had this Court in writ proceedings initiated by the Punjab and Haryana Bar Association directed the CBI to conduct an independent investigation 1 SCC 616]. Subsequently after abduction and murder alleged to have been committed by the appellant­accused. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 193 and 211 IPC was concerned it was for the having jurisdiction. However the three­Judge Bench did not discuss the scope and ambit of “in relation to” under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. Moreover since this decision was rendered supra) the three­Judge Bench did not have the benefit of referring to the observations made in that case. Hence the decision in Arvindervir Singh will not have any application to the case at hand as it involved a completely different set of III. Whether “ stage of a judicial proceeding ” under Explanation 2 to Section 193 IPC is synonymous with ” under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC of Explanation 2 to Section 193 IPC which deems an investigation preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of the Section. Such deeming provision applies even though that the investigation which is a “stage of a judicial proceeding” under Explanation 2 Section 193 IPC would be an offence committed “in relation to any proceeding in any Court” under 20.1 The purpose of Explanation 2 to Section 193 IPC is proceedings whether civil or criminal. However whether the commission of such offence would require the complaint of a before whom such false evidence is given. For example if a person gives false evidence in an inquiry before the Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC that would undoubtedly be an offence committed before a Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC before an investigating officer prior to the Court having taken 20.2 The object and purpose of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must in respect of certain offences to public servants or to the relevant aggrieved or impacted by those offences. Furthermore for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC there must be an intention on part of the alleged offender to directly mislead the Court into judicial proceeding insofar as it may culminate in issue of process and trial against the accused it would not be a investigation. The difference between a “stage” of a judicial We find it necessary to distinguish certain decisions of State of Maharashtra 6 SCR 700 a Constitution Bench Tax Officer under the Indian Income Tax Act 1922 would be proceedings in any court under Section 195(1)(b) of the 1898 Code which was the corresponding section in that Code to that proceedings before the Income Tax authority shall be deemed to be “judicial proceedings”1898 Code are synonymous. Therefore a private complaint complaint under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC in respect of false the competent appellate authority authorized to make a complaint under Section 195(4) CrPC. However the Division Bench referring to Lalji Haridas made an ancillary observation that such search operation is deemed to be a “judicial proceeding” under Section 193 CrPC and that the relevant purpose of Section 195 CrPC. This is as per the express and Another 1 SCC 466 a three­Judge Bench of this Court was faced with the issue of whether 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC IPC alleging making of false statements in affidavit before the of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972. Similar to the aforementioned income tax statutes Section 34(2) of the 1972 Act provided that the District Magistrate or the prescribed 1898 Code. Moreover that proceedings before such authority provision made under Section 34(2) of the 1972 Act the Rent if any false evidence was given during the course of such proceedings only the Rent Control Officer was authorized to make complaint of the same under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC Even otherwise on the facts of the case the three­Judge Bench found that abuse of criminal process had taken place and observed that “chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be jurisdiction of the criminal court” It can be seen from the above discussion that this Court has in some instances opined that where the law deems proceedings before a certain authority to be “judicial proceedings” the same would be considered as “proceedings in any court” under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. Therefore if the offence under Section 193 IPC is committed before such an required for trial of the offence. However the facts of the decisions in Lalji Haridas Babita Lila and In the present case pursuant to recovering the seized currency from the Appellant’s house on 24.01.2001 the Section 13(1)(e) PC Act against him. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the behest of the Appellant wrote letter dated 4.02.2002 to the Superintendent of Police CBI stating that the seized currency was held by the Appellant as part of an escrow arrangement sale deed dated 24.01.2001 and certain books of account in support of their claim. There was no involvement of the Trial the sale deed were obviously intended to convince the investigation agency that the Appellant had not accumulated the veracity of the contents of this letter they would not only but also wrongfully returned the seized currency under the but the Respondent authority agency which has been directly impacted due to fabrication of evidence by the the Trial Court at least not at the first instance. Rather their of wrongdoing at the stage of investigation itself. It was after being charged under Section 193 IPC that the 193 IPC was committed by the Appellants “in relation to” a Section 2(i) CrPC defines “judicial proceeding” as was admittedly a stage of a judicial proceeding by virtue of Explanation 2 to Section 193 IPC. However neither was the b) CrPC. Hence the decisions in Lalji Haridas and Chandrapal Singh will have no applicability to the present case. Thus it can be concluded that the investigation conducted by the Respondent under the PC Act cannot be b)(i) CrPC though it is deemed to be a stage of a judicial paragraph 18 where the fabrication of evidence has bearing on the trial court’s opinion and hence the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC may be applicable. However in the present case the investigating agency has been sagacious IPC at the preliminary stage. Therefore as stated by us in insist upon the requirement of an independent inquiry and 24.01.2001. The supposed agreement of sale was also not highly belated stage on 4.02.2002 almost a year after the recovery of the seized currency though the Appellant had corresponded with Accused No. 2 in May­June 2001. It is improbable in the ordinary course of conduct that a person be illegal. Hence it is apparent that the Appellants accused false circumstance of escrow transaction for the purpose of High Court has shown great lenity by reducing the sentences The questions of law formulated in paragraph 6 Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC will not bar punishable under Section 193 IPC which is provided that the investigating agency has lodged IPC prior to commencement of proceedings and In such circumstance the same would not be 24.1 The appeals are accordingly dismissed both on law and off against the period of imprisonment if any already undergone by the Appellants. The Appellants are directed to surrender are not already in custody. The Registry is further directed to expeditiously release the amount of fine if any deposited before this Court. If any arrears of fine are remaining the Appellants