Tribunal Not A 'Court' Under BNSS, Cannot Order Prosecution For False Evidence: NCLT Indore

The National Company Law Tribunal at Indore ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to initiate criminal prosecution under Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), holding that such powers are vested only in courts and not in statutory tribunals.

Section 215 bars cognisance of certain offences relating to false evidence in judicial proceedings except on a complaint by the concerned court, while Section 379 lays down the procedure for such courts to conduct an inquiry and file a complaint before a magistrate.

The Tribunal comprising Judicial Member Mohan P. Tiwari and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed:

“The Tribunal does not possess powers akin to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, nor does it exercise criminal jurisdiction under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Its powers are limited, confined and circumscribed strictly by the statute creating it. It cannot assume jurisdiction by implication, analogy or equity. Penal provisions must receive strict construction. In the absence of express legislative inclusion of tribunals within the meaning of “Court” under BNSS, this Tribunal cannot invoke Sections 215 or 379 of the said enactment.”

The issue arose from an application filed by Delhi Liquors seeking initiation of prosecution against Badri Prasad under Sections 215 and 379 of the BNSS. It alleged that the latter had made false statements and produced fabricated documents during insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in relation to Raisen Marketing Pvt Ltd.

According to Delhi Liquors, Prasad relied on an alleged demand letter dated 16 November 2022, to claim the existence of a pre-existing dispute. It argued that the letter had never been issued and had been fabricated to defeat the insolvency proceedings.

Prasad denied the allegations and contended that Sections 215 and 379 of the BNSS apply only where the alleged offence relates to proceedings before a “Court.”

Accepting Prasad's argument, the Tribunal held that its powers are limited to those expressly conferred by statute and cannot be expanded by implication or analogy. It observed that penal provisions must be strictly construed and that, in the absence of any legislative provision including tribunals within the meaning of “Court” under the BNSS, the NCLT cannot invoke Sections 215 or 379.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application seeking criminal prosecution as not maintainable. It clarified that the applicant remains free to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent criminal court.

For Applicant: Senior Advocate Sunil Fernandes, Advocate Abhishek Prasad

For Respondent: Advocates Vijayesh Atre, Aarya Chhangani