M.G. GIRATKAR, J.

1. All the revisions are against the judgment of conviction dated 06.03.2007 awarded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli in Regular Criminal Case No. 44 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. All the applicants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to suffer RI for one month. All the applicants sentenced to suffer RI for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, RI for one month for the offence punishable under Section 120B.

2. All the applicants/accused moved before Sessions Court by filing criminal appeals. The said appeals came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 27th October, 2009. Hence, all the applicants/accused before this Court in the respective revisions.

3. The case against the applicants (hereinafter referred as "accused" for the sake of brevity) in short is that one Smt. Rahidas was working as a nurse in Primary Health Center, Subhashgram. She lodged a report against accused Tridev Majumdar and Dinbandhu Samaddar. On her report, Summary Criminal Case No. 720 of 1996 (4/2008) was registered before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Chamorshi. It is the case of prosecution that the husband of complainant namely Dinguram (applicant/accused No.1) and accused Nos.3 and 4 Tridev and Dinbandhu brought accused No.2 Sau. Sonam to Advocate Dhait. Dinguram introduced her as his wife and requested to draft compromise petition. Compromise Petition was drafted and submitted to the Court of Judicial Magistrat, First Class. Offence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, therefore, compromise was not effected.

JMFC started recording the evidence. Accused No.2 Sau. Sonam entered the witness box and stated her name as Smt. Rahidas Dinguram Sangare. When some questions were asked by Assistant Public Prosecutor Shri Tarare, she could not depose. Due to recess, matter was adjourned. During the recess period, APP Tarare enquired from Court Constable Premanand Lade.

Premanand Lade, Court Constable submitted written report stating that accused No.2 Sonam was not Smt. Rahidas, but she is Smt. Sonam w/o Narendra Bishwas. This fact was brought to the notice of Court by Prosecutor Shri Tarare. Learned Magistrate passed the order to that effect at Exh.1 and forwarded the matter to Police Station, Gadchiroli for investigation. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were also sent along with written report of Advocate Pramod Tarare, Special Public Prosecutor. Crime was registered against all the accused. Offence under Sections 419, 205, 193 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the applicants/accused. Charge was framed. Later on, altered for the offence punishable under Section 419, 205, 468, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution has examined Parvatabai, Rahidas, Adv. Dhait, Adv. Tarare and Adv. Munghate. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, learned JMFC convicted the accused as stated above. It is pertinent to note that as per operative order, the main accused Smt. Sonam was not convicted and she was called to receive the sentence. Additional Sessions Judge also noted that accused No.2 Smt. Sonam was convicted but not sentenced by the JMFC and directed to verify about her conviction and sentence.

4. Heard Shri Mohta and Shri Borkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective applicants/accused. They have pointed out Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that offence took place while recording the evidence before JMFC. Therefore, it was for the JMFC himself to lodge complaint.

There is specific bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking cognizance on the police report. Therefore, all the proceedings are vitiated. Hence, the appli