# State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gundugol~ Venkata Suryanarayana Garu Shah, /

- **Citation:** [1964] 4 S.C.R. 957
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-01-31
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 708 of 1962
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendracadkar, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. W Anchoo, J. C. Shah, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-andhra-pradesh-v-gundugol-venkata-suryanarayana-garu-shah-3194
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898(Act 5 of
1898), ss. 476,
479A-Using forged document-Whether offence contemplated by
s. 479A(l)-Interpretation of s. 479A.
In a civil suit the appellant was examined as a witness and he
tendered in evidence an agreen1ent, which in the Munsiff's opinion
was forged. The Munsiff, however, in his judgment did not record
the opinion required for ordering the prosecution of the appellant
under s. 479A of the Code of Crin1inal Procedure.
Respondents
2 to 5, who were the plaintiffs in the suit, had applied, before the
suit \vas disposed of, that action be taken against the appellant under s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In disposing of
the suit the Munsiff did not record the opinion which he was required to record if he desired that action should be taken against
the appellant under s. 479A.
But on the application of the Respondents, the
Munsiff directed that complaint be
made against
the appellant in exercise of the powers vested under s. 476 Code
of Crin1inal Procedure for the offence of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine a docurnent which the appellant knew
or had reason to believe to be forged. This order of the Munsiff
was confinned in appeal by the District Judge, and the revision
to the High Court, too, was dismissed. In appeal by special leave,-
HELD : (i) Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
excludes the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed under s. 476 to
479, only in respect of offences under s. !95(b) & (c) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure where a person appearing before the Court
or a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of
a judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated falS(: evidence
for the purpose of being used in any ·stage of the judicial proceeding.
1963
State of Andhra
Pradesh
v.
Gundugol~ Venkata Suryanarayana Garu
Shah, /.
1963
Sept., 18
1963
Babu/al
v.
State of Uttar
Pradesh & others.
Shah, /.
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
(ii) The offence punishable under s. 471 of the Indian Penal
Code does not fall within the category contemplated by s. 479A
Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, the authority of the
Court to act under s. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not
impaired.
Raghubar Prasad Dudhwalla v. Chamanlal Mehra, [1964] 3
S. C. R. 980 and Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra,
[1963] Supp. 1 S. C. R. 501, referred to.
C1vrL APPELLATE
JuR1sn1cTION : Civil Appeal No.
708 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated January 31, 1962, of the Allahabad High Court in
Civil Revision No. 60 of 1960.
C. B. Agarwala, K. P. Gupta for K. R. Krishnaswamy
for the appellant.
C. P. Lal, for respondent no. 1.
S. P. Sinha and M. I. Khowaja, for respondents nos.
2 to 5.
September 18, 1963. The judgment of the Court was
ddivered by
SHAH, J.-Jairam · and three otherY.-hereafter collectively called "the plaintiffs" -sued Babu Lal-appellant in
this appeal-in the Court of the Munsiff, Koil, District
Aligarh, f0r a decree for possession of a strip of land, for
removal of a wall and a slab of stone and for an injunction restraining the making of certain constructions in the
northern wall of the plaintiffs' house. The plaintiffs claimed
that Mohini wife of J airam the first plaintiff had purchased
the house occupied by them by sale deed dated August 1,
1932 from the vendor who was also named Mohini, who
in her turn had purchased the house by sale deed dated
July 25, 1917 from the original owner Kishan Lal.
Babu Lal who is the son of Kishan Lal pleaded that
the vendor Mohini had acquired only a life interest in the
house by the deed under which the property was conveyed
to her by Kishan Lal and the plaintiffs' predecessor-ininterest had acquired no title under the sale deed dated
August l, 1932.
In support of this plea Babu Lal gave
evidence at the trial of the suit and tendered in evidence
an agreement dated July 25, 1917 purported to be executed by Mohini to whom Kishan Lal had conveyed the
-
1
-

## Text

l
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
957
to a party seeking to serve a notice upon the Government
or a public servant.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
The respondent
has not appeared before this Court and hence there will be
no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed
BABU LAL
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
(P. B. GAJENDRACADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. W ANCHOO,
J. C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898(Act 5 of
1898), ss. 476,
479A-Using forged document-Whether offence contemplated by
s. 479A(l)-Interpretation of s. 479A.
In a civil suit the appellant was examined as a witness and he
tendered in evidence an agreen1ent, which in the Munsiff's opinion
was forged. The Munsiff, however, in his judgment did not record
the opinion required for ordering the prosecution of the appellant
under s. 479A of the Code of Crin1inal Procedure.
Respondents
2 to 5, who were the plaintiffs in the suit, had applied, before the
suit \vas disposed of, that action be taken against the appellant under s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In disposing of
the suit the Munsiff did not record the opinion which he was required to record if he desired that action should be taken against
the appellant under s. 479A.
But on the application of the Respondents, the
Munsiff directed that complaint be
made against
the appellant in exercise of the powers vested under s. 476 Code
of Crin1inal Procedure for the offence of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine a docurnent which the appellant knew
or had reason to believe to be forged. This order of the Munsiff
was confinned in appeal by the District Judge, and the revision
to the High Court, too, was dismissed. In appeal by special leave,-
HELD : (i) Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
excludes the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed under s. 476 to
479, only in respect of offences under s. !95(b) & (c) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure where a person appearing before the Court
or a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of
a judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated falS(: evidence
for the purpose of being used in any ·stage of the judicial proceeding.
1963
State of Andhra
Pradesh
v.
Gundugol~ Venkata Suryanarayana Garu
Shah, /.
1963
Sept., 18
1963
Babu/al
v.
State of Uttar
Pradesh & others.
Shah, /.
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
(ii) The offence punishable under s. 471 of the Indian Penal
Code does not fall within the category contemplated by s. 479A
Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, the authority of the
Court to act under s. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not
impaired.
Raghubar Prasad Dudhwalla v. Chamanlal Mehra, [1964] 3
S. C. R. 980 and Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra,
[1963] Supp. 1 S. C. R. 501, referred to.
C1vrL APPELLATE
JuR1sn1cTION : Civil Appeal No.
708 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated January 31, 1962, of the Allahabad High Court in
Civil Revision No. 60 of 1960.
C. B. Agarwala, K. P. Gupta for K. R. Krishnaswamy
for the appellant.
C. P. Lal, for respondent no. 1.
S. P. Sinha and M. I. Khowaja, for respondents nos.
2 to 5.
September 18, 1963. The judgment of the Court was
ddivered by
SHAH, J.-Jairam · and three otherY.-hereafter collectively called "the plaintiffs" -sued Babu Lal-appellant in
this appeal-in the Court of the Munsiff, Koil, District
Aligarh, f0r a decree for possession of a strip of land, for
removal of a wall and a slab of stone and for an injunction restraining the making of certain constructions in the
northern wall of the plaintiffs' house. The plaintiffs claimed
that Mohini wife of J airam the first plaintiff had purchased
the house occupied by them by sale deed dated August 1,
1932 from the vendor who was also named Mohini, who
in her turn had purchased the house by sale deed dated
July 25, 1917 from the original owner Kishan Lal.
Babu Lal who is the son of Kishan Lal pleaded that
the vendor Mohini had acquired only a life interest in the
house by the deed under which the property was conveyed
to her by Kishan Lal and the plaintiffs' predecessor-ininterest had acquired no title under the sale deed dated
August l, 1932.
In support of this plea Babu Lal gave
evidence at the trial of the suit and tendered in evidence
an agreement dated July 25, 1917 purported to be executed by Mohini to whom Kishan Lal had conveyed the
-
1
-
.J
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
959
house reciting that the sale deed in her favour was without consideration and that she had only a life interest in
the house.
The Trial Judge held that the agreement relied upon
by Babu Lal was "not genuine" and that Mohini, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had under the sale deed
dated August 1, 1932 acquired title to the house in dispute
and on that footing decreed the suit. In appeal to the
District Court the finding that the agreement was not
genuine was not challenged.
Before the suit was disposed of by the Munsiff the
plaintiffs had applied that action be taken against Babu
Lal under s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
because Babu Lal had given false evidence before the
Court, that he had forged the agreement relied upon by
him, and that he had fabricated false evidence and had
used such fabricated evidence at the trial, and had thereby
committed offences punishable under ss. 193, 209, 463 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Munsiff did not dispose of the application by his judgment deciding the suit.
After the disposal of the suit the plaintiffs moved the
Munsiff for an order on the application filed by them. The
Munsiff held that no action could be taken against Babu
Lal for the offence of intentionally giving false evidence
or intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose
of being used in the suit for such action was barred by
s. 479 A Code of Criminal Procedure, but in his opinion
it was expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint
be filed against Babu Lal for offences "under ss. 463 and
471 LP. Code". Pursuant to this order on May 30, 1959
a complaint was filed against Babu Lal charging him with
committing an offence under s. 471 read with s. 463 Indian
Penal Code by using the agreement dated July 25, 1917
knowing or having reason to believe that it was a forged
document. The order passed by Trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Aligarh and a revision
application to the High Court of Allahabad challenging
the order was dismissed. With special leave, Babu Lal
has appealed to this Court.
Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure
prescribes _the procedure to be followed for prosecution of
offenders m case of certain offences affecting the adminis1963
Babu/al
v.
State of Uttar
Pradesh & others.
Shah, f.
1963
Babula!
v.
State of Uttar
Pradesh & others.
Shah, /.
•
..
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
tration of justice. Section 476 sets out the procedure for
prosecution of offenders for offences enumerated in s.
195(1)(b) & (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If
a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion, that
it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry
be made into any offence referred to in s. 195(1)(b) or
( c) which appears to have been committed in or in relation to proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after
such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,
record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing and forward the same to a Magistrate of the
first
class having jurisdiction. Section 476A authorises
a superior Court to make a complaint where a Subordinate Court has omitted to do so in respect of offences and
in the circumstances mentioned ins. 476(1). Section 476B
provides for a right of appeal against the order making
or refusing to make complaint. Sections 478 and 479 deal
with the procedure which may be followed in certain
grave cases. Section 479A which was added by the Code
of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 26 of 1955 by
the first sub-section (insofar as it is material) provides :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 476
to 479 inclusive, when anv Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion ·that any person appearing
before it as a witness has intentionaily given false
evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has
intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose
of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding,
and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury and
fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of
justice, it is expedient that such witness chould be pn>-
secntcd for the offence which appears to have been
committed bv him, the Court shall, at the time of the
delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of
such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating
its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after
giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make
a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding
officer of the Court setting forth the evidence which,
in the opinion of the Court, is false or fabricated and
forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, and may *
"
*
*
" "
-
_l.
n
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
961
And sub-s. ( 6) .enacts that : , ;
Babu/al
·v.
"No proceedings shall be taken under sec~ions 476
~o 479 inclusive for the prosecution of a person for·
giving or fabricating false. _evidence, if 'in respect 'of
such a person proceedings n:lay. be takeh under this
section~''
State of r,J ttar
Pradesh & others.
it is clear from the terms of·sub-s. (6) that the procedure prescribed thereby alone applies if the cas,e falls with- /
in sub-s. ( 1). But sub-s. ( 1) has a limited operation : it
applies only to the prosecution of a witness appearing
.before the Court; ·who .has intentionally given false evidence in any Stage . .of the jooicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being.
used in any stage of the judicial prdc~eding'. The subsection may therefore be resorted to only i':_l a case which
falls within the first paragraph of s.
193 of the Indian
Penal Code and allied sections 194 & 195-when it is committed by a witness appearing before the Court.
Babu Lal was examit]ed as a witness in the Civil suit
filed by the plaintiffs. He tendered in evidence the agreement dated July 25, 1917. In the opinion of the Munsiff
the doc;ument was a forged document. The Munsiff however by his judgment disposing of the suit did not record
an opinion that 'it was expedient ,for the eradication of
the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence, and
in the interests of justice to prosecute Babu Lal for the
<Jffence of intentionally giving false. evidence, or for intentionally fabricating false evidence 'for ·the purpose of being
used at any stage <Jf the judicial proceeding. He could
not therefore after the disposal o( the suit make a complaint for the offence ofl giving_ false. evidence or fabricating false evidence. The Trial Court accepted this restriction upon its jurisdiction and directed in exercise of the
powers vesteq under s. 476 Criiμinal Procedure Code the
making of a complaint of an offence of fraudulently or
dishonestly using .as genuine a document ,wh\i:h Babu Lal
knew or had reason to believe to be a f~rged document.
It is urged by counsel for Babu Lal that a complaint
for an offence under s. 471 Jnflian Penal Code may also
be' made under s. 479A Code "of Criminal Procedure and
not otherwise. 'The phraseology used _in s. 479A is plain
and unambiguous : it excludes the jurisdiction of the
Shah,/.
1963
Babu/al
v.
State of Uttar
Pradesh & others.
Shah,/.
%2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
Cou;t to 1.'roceed under ss. 476 to 479, in respect of offences
specified m s. 195 ( 1) (b) & ( c) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure only where a person appearing before the Court
as a witnes~ has intentionally given false evidence in any
stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any
stage of the judicial proceeding. An offence punishable
under s. 471 Indian Penal Code being one of fraudulently
or dishonestly using as genuine any document which the
accused knows or has reason to believe to be a forged
docuntent, does not fall within the category contemplated
by s. 479A(l) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
therefore the authority of the Court to act under s. 476
of the Code is impaired by sub--s. ( 6) of s. 479A. This
Court in Raghubir Prasad Dudhwalla v. Chamanlal Mehra
and another(') observed :
"The special procedure of s. 479A is prescribed only
for tl1e prosecution of a witness for the act of giving
false evidence in any -stage of judicial proceeding or
for fabrication of false evidence for the purpose of
being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding.
There is nothing in the section which precludes the
application of any other procedure ,prescribed by the
Code in respect of other offences.
*
*
"
Examining the special procedure prescribed by s. 479A
in that light, it is important to notice that the act of
intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of a
judicial proceeding and the act of fabricating false
evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of
a judicial proceeding mentioned in s. 479A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure are the acts which are made
punishable under s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code and
cognate sections in Chapter XL"
It is true that some of the ingredients of tl1e act of
fabricating false evidence which is penalised under s. 193
Indian Penal Code and of making a false document and
thereby committing forgery within the meaning of ss. 463
and 464 Indian Penal Code are common. A person by
making a false entry in any book or record or by making
any document containing a false statement may, if the
( 1 ) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 980.
.L.
-
-
-
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
963
prescribed conditions of s. 463 are fulfilled, commit an
offence of forgery. But the important ingredient which
constitutes fabrication of false evidence within the meaning of s. 192 Indian Penal Code besides causing a circumstance to exist or making a false document-to use a compendious expression-is the intention that the circumstance
so caused to exist or the false document made may appear
in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or before a public
servant or before an arbitrator, and lead to the forming
of an erroneous opinion touching any point material to
the result of the proceeding. The offences of forgery and
of fabricating false evidence for the purpose of using it
in a judicial proceeding are therefore distinct, and within
the description of fabricating false evidence for the purpose specified in s. 479A Criminal Procedure Code, the
offence of forgery is not included. In any event the offence penalised under s. 471 Indian Penal Code can, never
be covered by sub-s. (1) of s. 479A. Therefore for taking
proceeding against a person who is found to have used a
false document dishonestly or fraudulently in ar1y judicial
proceeding, resort may only be had to s. 476 Code of Criminal Procedure.
We may point out in the following observation made
by this Court in dealing with the true interpretation of
s. 479A Code of Criminal Procedure in Shabir Hussain
Bholu v. State of Maharashtra (1) :
"From this it would follow that whereas s. 476 is a
general provision dealing with the procedure to be
followed in respect of a variety of offences affecting
the administration of justice, in so far as certain offences falling under ss. 193 to 195 and s. 471 I. P. C.
are concerned the Court before which that person has
appeared as a witness and which disposed of the case
can alone make a complaint",
the words "and s. 471" appear to have crept in by oversight. That is clear from the observation made by the
Court earlier in the judgment, that the discussion relating
to the exclusive operation of s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was restricted to the offence of inten-
(1) [1963] Supp. I S.C.R. 501.
1963
Babula!
v.
State of Uttar
Pradesh & other;.
Shah, /.
1963
Babula/
v.
State of U ttar
Pradesh & others.
Shah, /.
1963
September 19
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
tionally giving false evidence in any stage of judicial proceeding.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
Appeal diJmissed.
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
JAGDIP SINGH & ORS.
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. W ANcHoo,
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 311 (2)-Appointment of
Tahshildars-No substantive vacancies-Creation of supernumerary
poSts-States
reorganisation-''Deconfirmation"
by
successor
State-If violates Art. 311(2) or s. 116 of the States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956).
The respondents who were officiating Tahsildars in the former
State of PEPSU were confirmed as
Tahsildars by a Notification
issued by the
Financial Con1n1issioner. No posts were available
at that ti111e in \vhich the respondents could be confirmed.
The
next da;i the Rajpramukh sanctioned
the creation of
supernu~
merary posts of 'Tahsildars to provide liens for the
respon<lents
who had been confirmed under the notification. Thereafter, State::>
Re-organisation took place an<l PEPSU merged \.Vith the State of
Punjab. The Punjab Govern1nent subsequently,
by a notification
"de-confirn1ed" the respondents.
The respondents challenged this
notification by \Vay of \Vrit petitions before the Punjab High Court
under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The grounds on
which the
challenge was 111ade were ( 1) the action of the Government amoun··
ted to a reduction in rank and it constituted a violation of Art.
311(2) of the Constitution and (2) it constituted a violation of the
protection given to the
respondents under s.
116 of the
States
Re-organisation Act, 1956.
The single Bench allowed the
writ
petition and after appealing to a Division Bench without· success
the State of Punjab appealed to this Court on special leave.
It was contended on behalf of the State that (1) the order
made by· the PEPSU Government confirming the respondents was
in total disregard of the Punjab Tahsildari Rules and, therefore,
-
-