Offences Affecting the Administration of Justice Sections 379 to 391

📖 Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253

Facts: A Court directed a complaint to be filed in respect of an offence appearing to have been committed in relation to a proceeding before it, without holding a preliminary inquiry and without hearing the person against whom the complaint was proposed. The order was challenged on the ground that both were required.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the preliminary inquiry contemplated by the section is not mandatory: the words are that the Court may make such preliminary inquiry as it thinks necessary, and whether to hold one is entirely for the Court. Nor is the person against whom the complaint is proposed entitled to be heard at that stage. The reason is that the order under the section does not decide anything against him: it merely sets in motion a process by which the allegation will be inquired into by another court, where he will have the full opportunity of defending himself that a criminal trial affords. The Court held that reading a right of hearing into the section would convert the preliminary stage into a trial before the trial, and would defeat the purpose of a provision meant to be a screening mechanism. What the Court must be satisfied of is that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry be made — not that the offence is established.

Ratio: A preliminary inquiry under the section is not mandatory, and the person against whom a complaint is proposed has no right to be heard at that stage. The order decides nothing against him; he will have a full opportunity at the trial that follows.

📖 Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 (five Judges)

Facts: A private complaint was filed alleging that a document had been forged, the document having subsequently been produced in a court proceeding. The question was whether the bar requiring a complaint by the Court applies where the forgery was committed before the document was produced in court, or only where it was committed while the document was in the custody of the court.

Held: The Constitution Bench held that the bar applies only where the offence relating to the document is committed when the document was in custodia legis — that is, after it had been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in Court. Where the forgery or fabrication took place before the document was produced, and had no connection with the proceeding, the bar does not apply, and a private complaint is maintainable. The Court reasoned that the object of the bar is to protect the administration of justice from being obstructed by vexatious prosecutions of witnesses and parties, and to leave to the Court the judgment whether a prosecution serves that interest; that object is not engaged where the offence was complete before the proceeding began. It also observed that a wider construction would mean that a person who had forged a document could immunise himself from private prosecution simply by producing it in some court, which cannot have been intended.

Ratio: The bar requiring a complaint by the Court applies only where the offence relating to the document was committed after it was produced or given in evidence in the proceeding. A forgery complete before production may be prosecuted on a private complaint.

⚠ The summary powers, and their limits

Section 383 permits a Court to try summarily a witness who has intentionally given or fabricated false evidence before it. It is available only where the Court thinks it necessary and expedient in the interests of justice, and the person must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause.

Section 384 permits a Court to deal with contempt committed in its view or presence at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day — detaining the offender, hearing him, recording the facts and his statement, and sentencing him. The same-day limit is the discipline: the power exists to meet an affront to the proceeding as it happens, not to be exercised in cold blood later.

Section 387 permits the Court to discharge the offender or remit the punishment on a submission of apology to its satisfaction — which is what makes these summary powers tolerable.

And section 391 is the essential safeguard: certain Judges and Magistrates shall not try offences committed before themselves. A judge who was the object of the contempt, or before whom the false evidence was given, should not ordinarily be the one who decides whether it was.

The position stated shortly

1. The offences in this Chapter are committed against a court, and section 215 bars any Court from taking cognizance of them except on the complaint of the Court concerned. Chapter XXVIII supplies the machinery.

2. Section 379: the test is whether it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry be made — not whether the offence is established.

3. A preliminary inquiry is optional — the Court may make such inquiry as it thinks necessary — and the person against whom the complaint is proposed has no right to be heard at that stage: Pritish.

4. The Court records a finding, makes a complaint in writing, and forwards it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.

5. Section 380: a person refused a complaint on his application, or against whom one is made, may appeal to the superior Court, which may withdraw the complaint or direct one. Its order is final.

6. The bar applies to an offence relating to a document only where it was committed after the document was produced or given in evidence. A forgery complete before production may be prosecuted on a private complaint: Iqbal Singh Marwah.

7. Section 383: a Court may try summarily a person who has intentionally given or fabricated false evidence before it, where necessary and expedient in the interests of justice, after a reasonable opportunity of showing cause.

8. Section 384: contempt in the view or presence of the Court may be dealt with at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, the offender being detained, heard, the facts and his statement recorded, and sentence passed.

9. Sections 388 and 389: a witness refusing to answer or produce a document may be detained; and a summary procedure exists for a witness who fails to attend. Section 387 permits discharge or remission on an apology.

10. Section 391: certain Judges and Magistrates shall not try offences committed before themselves — the judge who was affronted should not decide whether he was.