When Forged Driving License Is Tendered In Evidence Before MACT, It Attracts Offence U/S 193 IPC: Kerala High Court

The Court clarified that although the Tribunal did not explicitly use the phrase "expedient in the interest of justice" as contemplated under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 379 of the BNSS), the detailed reasoning provided in the impugned order satisfied the legal requirements in substance, thereby justifying the trial.

The Bench of Justice A Badharudeen observed, “Here as could be discernible from the impugned order, the forged licence was tendered in evidence and marked as Ext.B2. If so, in this case the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C would attract for registering a case by the police and the court should opt for the procedure contemplated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C and thus the Tribunal rightly stepped into it. When a forged driving licence is tendered in evidence, the offence under Section 193 of IPC, ie., intentionally giving false evidence in a judicial proceedings, would occur and the same is punishable. Such an offence to be proceeded under Section 340 of Cr.P.C or under Section 379 of BNSS.”

Advocate R Surendran appeared for the Appellant, whereas Senior PP Renjit George appeared for the Respondent.

The Bench dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a person who challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) order initiating criminal proceedings against her for submitting a forged driving licence.

Facts of the Case

The appellant was the first respondent in a motor accident claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Perumbavoor. During the proceedings, the appellant produced a driving licence to prove that she was authorized to drive at the time of the accident. However, the insurance company filed a petition to verify the licence details, which revealed that the licence was fake and forged. The records showed that the licence number actually belonged to another individual and was issued by a different authority.

Consequently, the Tribunal registered a case suo motu and concluded that the appellant had produced a bogus document to avoid legal consequences. The Tribunal then forwarded the matter to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor, for criminal action under the Indian Penal Code for fabricating false evidence. The appellant challenged this order of the Tribunal before the High Court.

Contention of the Parties

The primary argument was that the Tribunal failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). It was argued that the Tribunal did not explicitly record a finding that it was "expedient in the interest of justice" to lodge a complaint, which is a necessary legal requirement.

The State argued that although the specific words "expedient in the interest of justice" were not used in the order, the overall findings of the Tribunal clearly satisfied this requirement. It was contended that the order, when read as a whole, justified the initiation of criminal proceedings

Observations of the Court

The High Court examined whether the Tribunal's failure to use specific legal phrasing invalidated the criminal complaint. The Court noted that since the forged licence was produced as evidence during judicial proceedings, the offence of giving false evidence under Section 193 of the IPC was prima facie attracted.

The Court clarified that when an offence is committed in relation to a document already produced in court, the procedure under Section 340 Cr.P.C must be followed.

It ordered, “It is not in dispute that in cases where proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C would apply, the court has to record a finding that `it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings against the delinquent’. Here, on a perusal of the records, it could be seen that, pursuant to the complaint filed by the Sheristadar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor, based on the impugned order, the learned Magistrate took cognizance alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC by the accused and when the case was about to be taken up for trial, this Criminal Appeal has been filed and further proceedings got stayed. On perusal of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order, which are extracted above, the Tribunal narrated the reasons for passing the order.”

Regarding the "expediency" requirement, the High Court held that while the Tribunal did not use the exact phrase "expedient in the interest of justice," the detailed reasoning provided in the impugned order fully satisfied the legal necessity.

“In the instant case, even though the impugned order doesn’t specifically refer the words that “it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C”, the impugned order in toto would satisfy the said requirement. If so, the challenge against the impugned order is found to be meritless and is liable to be dismissed”, the Court said.

The Court dismissed the appeal for being sans merit, directing the lower court to proceed with the trial against the Appellant.

Cause Title: Raji Joshi Alias Reji Joshi v. State of Kerala [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:27895]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate R Surendran

Respondent: Senior PP Renjit George

Click here to read/download the Judgment