| The Supreme Court observed that
the body of Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code
refers to the expression “court” and the same
stands explained in sub-section (3).
The relevant portions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure are reproduced hereunder, for ready reference:
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority
of public servants, for offences against public justice and
for offences relating to documents given in evidence –
(1) No court shall take cognizance- |
| |
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following
sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely,
Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to
211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged
to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding
in any court, or
(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable
under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the
said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been
committed in respect of a document produced or given
in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt
to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified
in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),
except on the complaint in writing of that court, or
of some other court to which that court is subordinate.
(2) * * *
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term ‘court’
means a civil, revenue or criminal court, and includes
a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial
or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a court
for the purposes of this section.”
|
The clear language of Section 195(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure unmistakably depicts the restrictive intent of the
legislature and if the intent was otherwise to include an Arbitral
Tribunal within the fold of Section 195(3) of the Code, that
is to say, if the legislature wanted to confer such a status
there was no difficulty as such in incorporating thereunder
a provision as is contained in the Debt Recovery Act (vide Section
22); Income Tax Act (vide Section 136); Motor Vehicles Act [vide
Section 169(2)]; Administrative Tribunals Act [vide Section
22(3)]; Consumer Protection Act; MRTP Act; and Companies Act
etc. etc, since these statutes have definitely included and
declared the Tribunal being ascribed to be a court within the
meaning of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The inclusion
of explanatory provision by way of sub-section (3) makes the
situation abundantly clear.
The Supreme Court in Baliram Waman Hiray(Dr.) Vs. Justice
B.Lentin had taken into consideration the entire judicial
precedent available till the date of the judgement and came
to a conclusion upon reliance of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
judgement in Puhupram v. State of M.P. that the same lays
down the correct law. The Supreme Court Court observed in
that case:
“36….The least that is required of a court is
the capacity to deliver a ‘definitive judgement’,
and merely because the procedure adopted by it is of a legal
character and it has power to administer an oath will not
impart to it the status of a court. That being so, it must
be held that a Commission of Enquiry appointed by the appropriate
Government under Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry
Act is not a court for the purposes of Section 195 of the
Code.”
The learned Judges of the Supreme Court observed in this
case that they agree with the view expressed by the Supreme
Court in Baliram case with regard to the scope and effect
of Section 195(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore,
the law laid down by the Bench decision of the Calcutta High
Court in Sailaja Kanta Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal(holding
that Arbitrator under the Defence of India Act, 1939 and Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 is a court of civil jurisdiction)cannot
be said to be good law and stands overruled. The Supreme Court
held that the Arbitrator cannot be termed to be a court within
the meaning of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code
and as such the question of applicability of Section 340 CrPC
does not and cannot arise. The appeal was dismissed.
|