Section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply when the alleged alteration and addition were made in a copy of a document, and not in the original document. Judges should refrain from expressing opinions on the merits of a case pending in the police station while disposing of pre-arrest bail applications.

1. In this Misc. Petition it has been prayed that the order dated 12-6-86 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota u/s 438, Cr. P. C. ordering the accused non- petitioners on pre-arrest bail may be quashed. The ground on which this application has been moved primarily is that the learned Sessions Judge while releasing the accused-non-petitioners on pre-arrest bail u/s 438, Cr. P. C. has made some observations in respect of the merits of the case, and as a result of those observations the police is going to submit an F. R. u/s 169, Cr. P.C.

2. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the accused persons are said to have added and thereby altered a copy of a Will, and it is not alleged that any alteration and addition was made in the original Will. He contends that in such cases the bar of Section , Cr. P C. is not attracted and the court can take cognizance even without a complaint by the court concerned. A reference by the learned counsel has been made to the case of Sammukhsingh and another V. The King (AIR 1950 P. C. 31) . In the aforesaid case, the Privy Council has held that Section (1) only refers to a document alleged to be forged and not a copy of it. The reason is that the Court before which a copy of a document is produced is not really in a position to express any opinion upon the genuineness of the original. Though by production of a copy secondary evidence of the contents of a document might be said to be given, the forged document itseif cannot be said to be given in evidence. It was further held that where the document in respect of which a charge of forgery had been laid against the accused had not itself been produced or given in evidence in certain proceedings but on the contrary a copy of it had been produced the absence of complaint under S. 195(1) (c) cannot operate as a bar to the trial of the accused.

3. After the aforesaid view of the Privy Council, there remains nothing to be said in the present case. The learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the pre-arrest bail application u/s 438 Cr P. C. should have refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, which was pending in the police station. Therefore, any observations made by the learned Sessions Judge on the merits of the case are uncalled for and are expunged. But, there is no justification in setting aside that part of the order under which the pre-arrest bail application of the accused-non-petitioners was allowed, because in a case of the present natur the learned Sessions Judge has rightly exercised his discretion u/s 438, Cr. P. C.

4. I have already expunged the remarks so far as the merits of the case pending are concerned.

5. This petition is partly allowed and the expression of opinion by the learned Sessions Judge on the merits of the case pending investigation is hereby quashed. It is also observed that what is prohibited by Section (1), Cr. P. C. is the taking cognizance of an offence mentioned therein and not of investigation of the case. If after investigation, the police files a charge-sheet and an objection is raised that cognizance cannot be taken because of Section (I ), Cr. P. C. even then in a case where the original document said t o be forged is involved, the court will have to decide that objection. But, while disposing of an application u/s 438, Cr. P. C. it will be premature to express any opinion on the merits of the case and as to whether cognizance of the offence could or could not be taken in view of Section , Cr. P, C.Petition partly allowed.

*******