“At this stage, it is important to understand the difference between the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii). Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the provisions of Section 191 to 193 of the IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) applies. What is important is that once these sections of the IPC are attracted, the offence should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. Thus, what is clear is that the offence punishable under these Sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court.

Contrasted with Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(ii) speaks of offences described in Section 463, and punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 of the IPC, when such offences are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. What is conspicuous by its absence in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are the words “or in relation to”, making it clear that if the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are attracted, then the offence alleged to have been committed must be committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis, and not an offence that may have occurred prior to the document being introduced in Court proceedings.

Iqbal Singh Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 is clear authority for the proposition that in cases which fall under Section 195(1)(b)(ii), the document that is said to have been forged should be custodia legis after which the forgery takes place. There is direct authority for the proposition that the ratio in Iqbal Singh Marwah cannot be extended to cases governed by Section 195(1)(b)(i).”

– Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, M/s. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 546-550 of 2017].