17.1 Just like a private party who has been a victim of
forgery committed outside the precincts of the Court, the
investigative agency should not be left remediless against persons
who have producing false evidence for the purpose of interfering
with the investigation process. Moreover, the present case
concerns offences alleged to have been committed under the PC
Act. Public interest and the reputation of the State will suffer
significant harm if corrupt public servants are facilitated by third
parties in hiding their assets from scrutiny. Hence any
interpretation which negates against the speedy and effective trial
of such persons must be avoided.
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.
Subsequently, it is brought to their notice that the evidence was
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
opportunity to consider the allegedly fabricated evidence, as trial
has not yet commenced in respect of the offence. Hence it would
not be possible for the Court to independently ascertain the need
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
whether such falsification has taken place, through what means
and for what purpose.
17.3 In case the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) is applied to
offences committed during the course of investigation, the Court
may think it fit to wait till the completion of trial to evaluate
whether a complaint should be made or not. Subsequently, the
Court may be of the opinion that in the larger scheme of things
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
compelled to take a chance and wait for the trial court to form its
opinion in each and every case. This may give the offender under
Section 193, IPC sufficient time to fabricate more falsehoods to
hide the original crime. Further, irrespective of the potential
impact that such false evidence may have on the opinion formed
by the trial court, the investigating agency has a separate right to
proceed against the accused for attempting to obstruct fair and
transparent probe into a criminal offence. Thus, we are of the
view that it would be impracticable to insist upon lodging of
written complaint by the Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC
in such a situation.
The questions of law formulated in paragraph 6
(supra) are answered as follows:
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. This is
provided that the investigating agency has lodged
complaint or registered the case under Section 193,
IPC prior to commencement of proceedings and
production of such evidence before the trial court.
In such circumstance, the same would not be
considered an offence committed in, or in relation
to, any proceeding in any Court for the purpose of
Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021
(arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5102 of 2020)
Bhima Razu Prasad Vs State
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Dated: MARCH 12, 2021
Print Page