Complaint outside purview of Section 340 Cr.P.C cannot be filed by any Court.

1. This revision is preferred against Judgment dated 08-11-2006 in Crl.A.No.96/2004 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam whereunder judgment dated 02-08-2004 in C.C.No.520/2002 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (formerly V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam) was confirmed.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-

Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Law & Order Police Station filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging that revision petitioner produced a forged salary certificate along with identity card before VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka while standing as surety for an accused by name one P. Srinivasa Rao in Crime No.58/2002 of Gajuwaka Law & Order Police Station and the learned Magistrate forwarded accused along with forged salary certificate for investigation and the investigation revealed that accused committed offences under Sections 468 & 471 IPC. During trial, six witnesses are examined and 11 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found accused guilty for the offences under Sections 468 & 471 IPC and sentenced him to suffer two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-for the offence under Section 468 IPC, six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions and I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against accused. Now aggrieved by the judgments of both Courts, present revision is preferred.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Advocate for revision petitioner mainly contended that there is no complaint from the Presiding Officer of the Court as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C., therefore, the entire trial is vitiated. He submitted that even otherwise, the person who is expected to issue salary certificate of the employees is not examined to prove that the salary certificate produced by accused is not issued by the competent authority and the witness examined i.e., P.W.3 is nothing to do with the issue of salary certificate, but the trial Court treated P.W.3 as the issuing authority, which is a wrong finding. He further submitted that provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C and Section 340 Cr.P.C are not followed and the conviction cannot be sustained. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that accused was sent to police station with official memorandum, which is marked as Ex.P1 and the evidence of hand writing expert would disclose that the certificate produced by accused is a false and forged document. He submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere.

5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the Judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?

6. Point:- Here the revision petitioner is a driver working in APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Depot at relevant point of time. According to prosecution, P.W.1 was VIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka at relevant point of time. According to prosecution, on 02-03-2002, at about 3:00 P.M., the revision petitioner appeared before the Court of P.W.1 as surety for an accused in Crime No.58/2002 of Gajuwaka Law & Order Police Station and that P.W.1 suspected the genuineness of the salary certificate produced by accused and on that, he forwarded accused along with the salary certificate and identity card to S.H.O., Gajuwaka Law & Order Police through an official memo for investigation. Police registered crime on the basis of the official memo of P.W.1, investigated into and filed charge sheet.

7. Now the main contention of the revision petitioner is that procedure un