# AMIT VASHISTHA v. SURESH AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [2017] 7 S.C.R. 736
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017-08-31
- **Case number:** CriminalAppealNo.245 of 2010
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/amit-vashistha-v-suresh-and-another-32125
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A
B
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 736
AMIT VASHISTHA
v.
SURESH AND ANOTHER
(CriminalAppealNo.245 of 2010)
AUGUST 31, 2017
[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.f
Penal Code, 1860 - s.228 - Jn an adjudication proceeding
u/s. 7 A of Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions
C Act, 1952 with regard to provident fund claims of the respondent,
the Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint u/s. 228 that
respondent had obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by
abusing and assaulting the Presiding Officer - Maintainability of
complaint challenged - Held: s.2(i) of the Cr.P.C. defines a judicial
proceeding to include any proceedings in the course of which
D
evidence is or may be legally taken on oath - This power is
indisputably statutorily vested in the authority holding proceedings
u/s. 7A of the 1952 Act. - Therefore, the proceedings u/s. 7A are
deemed to be judicial proceedings and complaint u/s.228
maintainable - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195(l)(b)(i)
E - Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
-s.7A.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The legislature, in its wisdom, considering the
seriousness of the adjudicatory process under Section 7A of 1952
F
Act vested it with the nature of a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of Sections 193 and 228 IPC. If the proceedings under
Section 7A are deemed to be a judicial proceeding by fiction, it
must be carried to its logical conclusion. Therefore, such a judicial
proceeding can well be equated for that purpose with a court
under Section 195(1)(b)(i). The High Court failed to consider
G the effect of the judicial nature of the proceeding, simply by
reference to Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. to hold that the
proceedings did not partake the nature of a court, and therefore,
the complaint was not maintainable. (Para 6] [738-F-Hl
H
736
AMIT VASHISTHA v. SURESH AND ANOTHER
737
Lalji Haridas v. State of Maharashtra [1964) 6 SCR
A
700 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1964) 6 SCR 700
referred to
Para 6

## Text

A
B
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 736
AMIT VASHISTHA
v.
SURESH AND ANOTHER
(CriminalAppealNo.245 of 2010)
AUGUST 31, 2017
[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.f
Penal Code, 1860 - s.228 - Jn an adjudication proceeding
u/s. 7 A of Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions
C Act, 1952 with regard to provident fund claims of the respondent,
the Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint u/s. 228 that
respondent had obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by
abusing and assaulting the Presiding Officer - Maintainability of
complaint challenged - Held: s.2(i) of the Cr.P.C. defines a judicial
proceeding to include any proceedings in the course of which
D
evidence is or may be legally taken on oath - This power is
indisputably statutorily vested in the authority holding proceedings
u/s. 7A of the 1952 Act. - Therefore, the proceedings u/s. 7A are
deemed to be judicial proceedings and complaint u/s.228
maintainable - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195(l)(b)(i)
E - Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
-s.7A.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The legislature, in its wisdom, considering the
seriousness of the adjudicatory process under Section 7A of 1952
F
Act vested it with the nature of a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of Sections 193 and 228 IPC. If the proceedings under
Section 7A are deemed to be a judicial proceeding by fiction, it
must be carried to its logical conclusion. Therefore, such a judicial
proceeding can well be equated for that purpose with a court
under Section 195(1)(b)(i). The High Court failed to consider
G the effect of the judicial nature of the proceeding, simply by
reference to Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. to hold that the
proceedings did not partake the nature of a court, and therefore,
the complaint was not maintainable. (Para 6] [738-F-Hl
H
736
AMIT VASHISTHA v. SURESH AND ANOTHER
737
Lalji Haridas v. State of Maharashtra [1964) 6 SCR
A
700 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1964) 6 SCR 700
referred to
Para 6
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 245 of 2010.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2009 passed by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Cr. R.No.445
B
of2007.
C
Keshav Mohan, Smarhar Singh, Piyush Choudhar, Advs. for the
Appellant.
·
Suresh (in-person), C.D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Gaurav
Shukla, Usman, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by order dated
30.01.2009 in Criminal Revisio:i No.445 of2007. By the impugned order,
the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 228 of
the Indian Penal Code on the premise that the adjudication proceedings
. under Section 7 A of the Emplcyees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter for short the 'Act') not being before a
court, the complaint itself was not maintainable.
2. In an adjudication proceeding under Section 7 A of the Act,
with regard to provident fund claims of the respondent, the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint on 22.06.2001 before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 228 !PC, that the
respondent had obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by abusing
the Presiding Officer, and rushed to assault him, but the complainant
was saved by the office staff. The Magistrate convicted the respondent
till rising of the Court and imposed fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
In appeal, preferred by the respondent, the Sessions Judge while
maintaining the conviction released him under the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 on an undertaking of p;ood behavior for a period of one year.
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 7 S.C.R.
A
Aggrieved, the respondent moved the High Court in a revision application
leading to the impugned order, thus the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court
erred in not appreciating that the proceedings under Section 7 A were
judicial proceedings, and misdirected itself in concluding that the office
B
of the appellant was not a court, and therefore, the complaint itself was
not maintainable under Section 195( 1 )(b )(i) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C').
4. The respondent appearing in person, supporting the impugned
order submitted that the proceedings under Section 7 A not being before
c a court, the High Court rightly held that no complaint could have been
filed under Section 195(1 )(b )(i) of the Cr.P.C which was applicable only
to proceedings before a court. It was next submitted that in any event
the complaint could have been filed, if at all, before the appellate tribunal
under Section 7 J of the Act, and not before the magistrate directly.
D
5. The facts are not in dispute, and neither is it in dispute that the
E
F
G
appellant is a public servant. The only question for consideration is if the
complaint under Section 228 IPC was maintainable in view of the
proceeding under Section 7 A deemed to be a judicial proceeding or
whether the proceedings had to be before a court to invoke Section
195(l)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.
6. Section 2(i) of the Cr.P.C defines a judicial proceeding to include
any proceedings in the course of which evidence is or may be legally
taken on oath. This power is indisputably statutorily vested in the authority
holding proceedings under Section 7 A of the Act. The legislature, in its
wisdom, considering the seriousness of the adjudicatory process under
the said provision, vested it with the nature of a judicial proceeding within
the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 IPC. If the proceedings under
Section 7 A are deemed to be a judicial proceeding by fiction, it must be
carried to its logical conclusion. Therefore, such a judicial proceeding
can well be equated for that purpose with a court under Section
195(l)(b)(i). Whether the proceedings under Section 7 A will partake
the character of a court or not, is not relevant to the controversy. The
High Court failed to consider the effect of the judicial nature of the
proceeding, simply by reference to Section 195(l)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. to hold
that the proceedings did not partake the nature of a court, and therefore,
the complaint was not maintainable. A similar issue was considered in
AMIT VASHISTHA v. SURESH AND ANOTHER
739
[NAVIN SINHA, J.]
La/ji Haridas vs. State of Maharashtra, (1964) 6 SCR 700, observing
A
as follows:-
" 14. It is somewhat remarkable that though Section 193 IPC, refers
to a judicial proceeding, Section 195 CrPC refers to a proceeding
in any court; it does not say a judicial proceeding in any court.
Mr Desai contends that reading Section 193 IPC and Section
195(1)(b) CrPC together, it would not be unreasonable to hold
that proceedings which are judicial under the former, should be
taken to be proceedings in any court under the latter. The whole
basis of providing for a higher sentence in regard to offences
committed at any stage of a judicial proceeding appears to be that
the legislature took the view that the said offences were more
serious in character, and so, it distinguished the said offences from
similar offences committed at any stage of other proceeding. The
argument is that while providing for a higher sentence in respect
of this more serious class of offences committed at any stage of
judicial proceedings, the legislature intended that there should be
a safeguard in respect of complaints as regards the said offences
and that safeguard is provided by Section 195(l)(b) CrPC. In
other words, an offence which is treated as more serious by the
first paragraph of Section 193 lPC because it is an offence
committed during the course of a judicial proceeding should be
held to be an offence committed in any proceeding in any court
for the purpose of Section 195(l)(b) CrPC. On this argument, it
is not necessary to consider whether the Income Tax Officer is a
court or not, for, in substance, the contention is that as soon as
Section 37(4) of the Act was enacted, the proceedings before an
Income Tax Officer become judicial proceedings for the purpose
of Section 193 IPC, and since they are classed under the first
paragraph of the said section, they attract the protection of Section
195( I )(b) Cr PC. In our opinion, there is considerable force in this
argument, and, on the whole, we are inclined to prefer the
construction suggested by Mr Desai to that pressed before us by
the learned Additional Solicitor-General.
xxxxxxxxxx
16 ...... There can be little doubt that if a person offers an insult to
a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding, or causes interrnption
to him while he is so sitting at any stage of the judicial proceeding,
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
740
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 7 S.C.R.
the complaint has to proceed from the public servant himself; that
is the effect of Section 195(l)(b) CrPC."
7. The argument that the complaint was required to be filed under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the appellate tribunal and not before the
magistrate havingjurisdiction is considered frivolous and is rejected.
8. The order of the High Court is, therefore, held to be
unsustainable and is set aside.
9. The appeal is allowed.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.