Interpretation of Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C. regarding Forged Documents and Police Competence

Before Fazal Karim, Sh. Riaz Ahmad, and Sh. Muhammad Zubair, JJ

This case, heard on October 23, 1991, addresses complex questions concerning the interpretation and application of Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Specifically, the bench considered two main points: first, whether Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C., which deals with offences related to documents produced in court, applies to documents that were forged

before the institution of a suit or proceeding in which they were later produced as evidence. Second, if the provisions of Section 195 are attracted but no complaint has been made by the concerned court, whether the police are competent to register and investigate such a case. The judgment delves into the “literal approach” versus the “purposive approach” in statutory interpretation, noting a modern trend towards the latter. The court emphasized that the purpose of enacting Section 195 Cr.P.C. is to protect the judicial process from direct affronts by limiting who can initiate proceedings for certain offences.

The High Court held that Section 195(1)(c) Cr.P.C. does

not apply to cases where forgery was committed before the institution of a suit or other proceeding in which the forged document was produced or given in evidence. The court preferred an interpretation that does not deprive ordinary Criminal Courts of their jurisdiction or individuals of their right to redress. It was reasoned that offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(c) are non-cognizable, requiring police to obtain a Magistrate’s permission for investigation, which serves as sufficient protection against harassment. The court also clarified that Sections 195 and 476 of the Cr.P.C. are complementary and must be read together, with Section 476 providing a “legislative interpretation” of Section 195(1)(c), making it clear that offences must have been committed “in or in relation to” proceedings in court. This means that the prohibition in Section 195(1)(c) is confined to offences committed by a party to a proceeding, where the commission of the offence has a “reasonably close nexus with the proceedings”.

Download PDF