Judgment

KAILASAM, J. :- This appeal is preferred by Dr. S. L. Goswami by special leave granted by this Court against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 709 of 1971. Criminal Revision No. 709 of 1971 was filed by the appellant before the High Court for quashing the order of the Magistrate. First Class, Jabalpur committing the appellant to Sessions for trial under Section 466 read with S. 120-B of the I. P. C.

2. The appellant was prosecuted before the Special Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 3 of 1967 for an offence under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, in connection with the defalcations of Government funds. In that case one Dr. S. C. Barat was examined as a defence witness. The appellant was convicted and an appeal against his conviction before the High Court failed. The appellant obtained special leave from this Court to appeal against the order of the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the SC the High Court was required to prepare a paper book for use in the SC. It is alleged that when the paper book was being prepared in the SC section of the High Court the appellant Dr. Goswami entered into a conspiracy with two of the translators and tampered with the original deposition of Dr. S. C. Barat, D. W. 1. The Additional Registrar of the High Court filed a complaint before the First Class Magistrate, Jabalpur, against the appellant for an offence under Section 466 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case was taken on file by the Magistrate as Criminal Case No. 1924 of 1971. Against the two persons who were alleged to have conspired with the appellant in tampering with the deposition of Dr. Barat a challan was filed by the police before the same First Class Magistrate. The Magistrate by a common order on 15th November, 1971 committed the appellant as well as the two others to the Sessions Court to take their trial for offences under S. 466 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and another with whom we are not concerned preferred a revision petition against the order of his committal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant and hence this appeal.

3. The main contentions that are raised in this appeal are : (1) The Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of an offence under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, without sanction of the Government under Section 196-A (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; and (2) the offence, if any, was not committed 439 in any court in respect of a document produce or given in evidence in such proceeding as required under S. 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. We will take up the first contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely that the trial court was in error in taking cognizance of the offence without a complaint by the State Government when the offence charged is one of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as required under Section 196-A (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 196-A (2) reads as follows :-

"196-A. No court shall take cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the India Penal Code.

(1)x x x x

(2) in a case where the object of the conspiracy is to commit any non-cognizable offence, or a congnizable offence not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards unless the State Government, or a Chief Presidency Magistrate or District Magistrate empowered in this behalf by the State Government has by order in writing consented to the initiation of the proceedings :

Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 195 apply no such consent shall be necessary."

5. Section 466 deals with a non-cognizable offence and the sub-clause (2) to Section 196-A provides