The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution did not require sanction from the civil court for prosecuting the accused under Section 471, and the complainant was entitled to have the case tried in respect of the charges previously made.

JUDGMENT

Suhrawardy, J. - This rule has been issued on the application of the crown against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta discharging the accused persons u/s 253, Criminal P.C. The facts are that on 10th January 1928 one Gulzari Mull Thakur laid a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate against the accused in respect of offences under Sections 380, 411 and 403, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate ordered the Deputy Commissioner of the Detective Department for enquiry into the matter. On 10th February the police produced the two accused under arrest before the Magistrate who remanded them to hajut. On 13th February 1928 the police submitted charge-sheet against the two accused. It appears from the charge sheet that accused 1 was charged u/s 380 for stealing a deed of conveyance or in the alternative for dishonestly retaining it in his possession. The first accused was further charged with an offence u/s 471 for fraudulently and dishonestly using as genuine two forged documents namely, one acknowledgment receipt dated 2nd July 1927 and one counterfoil of rent bills book. The , second accused was charged u/s 414 read with Section 511 for voluntarily assisting each other in attempting to dispose of the stolen deed of conveyance and he was also charged u/s 471 read with Section 114 for aiding and abetting accused 1 in the fraudulent use of the forged document. On 17th February 1928 accused 1 instituted, a suit in the original side of the High Court on the aforesaid acknowledgment receipt claiming equitable mortgage on the basis of it. With the plaint he attached only an English translation of the receipt. On 4th April at the instance of the accused the documents said to be forged were sent to the Registrar, Original Side of this Court. On 2nd May 1928, the suit instituted by the accused was dismissed for non-prosecution. The application for its restoration also failed as the accused did not carry out the condition on which the learned Judge had ordered the restoration of the suit. On these facts the learned Magistrate is of opinion that a suit having been brought in a civil Court on the basis of the document which is said to have been fraudulently used sanction of the Court is necessary and that the prosecution cannot go on without such a sanction. In this view of the matter the learned Magistrate has discharged the accused u/s 253, Criminal P.C.

2. It is argued on behalf of the Crown that the view taken by the Magistrate is not correct in law, as the offences with which the accused were charged had been taken cognizance of before the suit was brought in the civil Court. With regard to the offences under Sections 318 and 411 it is conceded by the learned Counsel on behalf of the accused that there is no bar, legal or otherwise, to the accused being tried separately although he at the same time contends that all the offences should be tried together. With regard to the offence u/s 471 he tries to support the view of the Magistrate by saying that when a suit is brought in respect of a document said to have been used as genuine the accused cannot be prosecuted for offences u/s 471 even though he may have used this document prior to the institution of the suit. There is no authority for this proposition but we have been referred to some cases which apparently have no bearing on the question. There are many features in this case which distinguish it from the case of Nalini Kanto Laha v. Anuhul Chandra Laha [1917] 44 Cal. 1002. In that case the suit was brought before the complaint was made in a criminal Court. There were charges of forgery and of using forged  document before the Sub-Registrar subsequently, that document was produced and used in proceeding u/s 105, Criminal P.C., and since an offence of using a forged document was committed in connexion with proceedings in Court the learned Judges were of opinion in view of Section 195-1(c), Criminal P.C., that for such a user the accused could not be prosecut