( 1 ) WHILE hearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 5095-M of 1984 (Harbans Singh etc. v. State), M. M. Punchhi, J. formed the view that a Division Bench decision of this court reported as Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 Cri LJ 713 went against the Supreme Court judgment reported as Gopalakrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy, AIR 1983 SC 1053. In the view of M. M. Punchhi, J. , as the principle of Gopalakrishna Menon s case (supra) seems to have escaped the notice of the learned Judges in Karnail Singh s case (1983 Cri LJ 713) (Punj and Har) (supra), the latter judgment might be rendered per incuriam. On this basis, this matter in which the interpretation of section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred as the new Code) is involved is referred to a larger Bench. Criminal Revision No. 517 of 1985 Baldev Singh etc. v. State of Punjab was also directed to be heard with Criminal Misc. No. 5095-M of 1984.

( 2 ) THE question of judgment in case of Karnail Singh s case (supra) being per incuriam does not arise. Per incuriam means through want of care . It means an order of Court obviously made through some mistake or under some misapprehension. Karnail Singh s case was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 20th of October, 1982 and Gopalakrishna Menon s case was decided by the Supreme Court on 5th of September, 1983. As Gopalakrishna Menon s case was decided after the decision of Karnail Singh s case, there was no question of noticing of the former case by the Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh s case. This ends the reasoning about per incuriam as referred by the learned Single Judge.

( 3 ) SINCE the correctness of Karnail Singh s case (1983 Cri LJ 713) (Punj and Har) has come to be doubted in the light of Gopalakrishna Menon s case (1983 Cri LJ 1599) (SC), we did not feel inclined to decline the reference on the basis of per incuriam, as noticed in the previous paragraph, but heard the parties in detail in regard to the scope of S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the new Code after its amendment and whether the amendment had brought any change in the area of its operation. The facts in Karnail Singh s case were that Karnail Singh petitioner and another had instituted a civil suit on 25th of September, 1980 against his brother Jarnail Singh and others for a declaration that they were owners in possession of the land and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession. The suit was based on the will allegedly executed on 27th of April, 1977 by Karnail Singh s father Hari Singh. Jarnail Singh during the pendency of the said suit made an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, alleging that the will relied upon by Karnail Singh was forged and, therefore, he had committed offence under sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code. The police registered the case and commenced investigation. Karnail Singh approached the High Court for quashing of the first information report and the investigation.

( 4 ) IN Karnail Singh s case (1983 Cri LJ 713), the Division Bench of this court was seized of the question whether the police had the statutory power to investigate the cognizable offences under section 471, 475 or 476 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the new Code with regard to the cognizance thereof by a court. While deciding that case on the basis of arguments addressed before the Bench it went into the scope of S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the new Code after amendment; as to what was the effect of the deletion of the words, "by a party to any proceeding in any Court" from S. 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (hereinafter referred as the old Code), while enacting S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the new Code. The Division Bench also decided the question whether after amendment S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the new Code applied to the case where forgery was committed much earlier