Judgment

SHELAT, J. : - The appellant and one Bakshi Singh Sunder Singh were accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 retrospectively in the committal proceedings before the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court, Greater Bombay. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay refusing to quash the order of committal passed by the learned magistrate.

2. The facts relevant to this appeal are few and may first be stated.

3. On October 31, 1963, one Jivansingh Uttamsingh obtained a British passport fearing No. 183459 at Nairobi. On the strength of that passport he was returning to India with his family. On his way he died on board the ship. According to the prosecution that passport came into the hands of the appellant. Bakshi Singh desired to go to the United Kingdom, but had no passport. The appellant agreed to arrange his journey and also for that purpose to obtain a passport for him.

4. The allegation was that the appellant prepared an application for a visa in the name, of Bakshi Singh. It was further alleged that with a view to procure the said visa the photograph of the said deceased Jivansingh was removed from the said passport and that of Bakshi Singh substituted. The visa having in this fashion been obtained, Bakshi Singh journeyed to the United Kingdom having on his way made some intermediate halts. The British authorities suspected that the passport was a forged document and repatriated Bakshi Singh to India. On his arrival he was handed over to the Special Police, Bombay.

5. The Special Police carried out investigation in the course of which they recorded statements of certain witnesses including that of Tanna Singh, the younger brother of Bakshi Singh. On completion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet before the learned Magistrate. That charge-sheet is not before us. But counsel for the appellant informed us that Bakshi Singh was therein charged under sections 419 and 471 read with section 468, and the appellant was charged under sections 419/ 109, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. Counsel also informed us that the Magistrate did not examine any witnesses, during the committal proceedings but on a perusal of the chargesheet and the documents filed before him under sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he framed the charges and committed, by his order dated September 13, 1968, Bakshi Singh and the appellant for trial before the Sessions Court. By that order he directed the said Bakshi Singh to stand his trial under sections 120B, 419, 467 and 471 read with sec. 467, and the appellant under sections 120B and 467 of the Penal Code. The offence of criminal conspiracy charged under sec,120B was that the said Bakshi Singh and the appellant had conspired to forge the said passport for the use of the said Bakshi Singh.

6. In the High Court various contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant in support of his application under sec. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure including that under sec. 196A (2). That contention was that no consent as required by sec. 196A (2) having been first obtained, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence of conspiracy, and therefore, the committal order was without jurisdiction and had to be quashed. In this appeal we are concerned only with that contention as the special leave granted to the appellant has been limited to that ground alone.

7. Sub-section (2) of sec. 196A which is relevant to the present case, provides that no court shall take cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under sec. 120B of the Penal Code in a case inter alia where the object of such conspiracy is to commit any non-cognizable offence. There is no doubt that the charge, as framed by the Magistrate and for which he committed the appellant and Bakshi Singh to stand their trial before the Sessions Court, was for criminal conspiracy, the object of which was to forge the said passport, a noncognizable offence. In respect of t