Whether or not the provisions of Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are attracted in application so as to bar a prosecution on behalf of a complainant other than a court is the short but ticklish and simple but a debatable question which calls for determination in this revision application. The circumstances under which the question has arisen and the background to which the question is referable can be appreciated from the contents of the paras which follow: -

The petitioner was the defendant and the respondent the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Reasi. The suit culminated in a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant with costs, the date of decree being 16-10-1968.

To enable them to take out execution of the decree the decree-holders applied for a copy of the decree-sheet from the Court of the Sub Judge, Reasi. The decree-sheet mentioned the amount of costs as Rs. 90/-. The copy of the decree-sheet obtained by the decree-holders, it was alleged by the petitioner in this revision application, was forged by the respondents-decree-holders by making insertions in it raising the amount of cost by another sum of Rs. 50/-, as the cost incurred by the plaintiff-decree-holders in the Court of Sub Judge at Udhampur. It was further alleged that after committing the afore-said forgery the respondent-decree-holders filed an application for execution of the said decree on 15-11-1968 in the Court of C.J.M., Udhampur after obtaining requisite certificates regarding the non-satisfaction of the decree in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Reasi, the Court which passed the decree. The application for execution remained pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Udhampur upto 12-12-1968 when the judgment-debtors, the present petitioner deposited the decretal amount. The present complaint was filed in the Court of C.J.M. Udhampur on 19-12-1968 by the petitioner who was the judgment-debtor in the execution proceedings against the respondent, the decree-holders in the execution proceedings under Section 466 of the Penal Code alleging that the respondents had committed forgery by making interpolations and insertions in the copy of the decree-sheet obtained by them from the Court of Subordinate Judge at Reasi and that in the execution application this inflated sum of costs was sought to be recovered on the basis of the aforesaid forged copy of the decree-sheet. The process having been issued in the aforesaid complaint against the respondent by the C.J.M. Udhampur. The accused appeared on 20-11-1969, later the case was transferred by the C.J.M., Udhampur to the Court of Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Reasi, on an application made by Badri Nath, one of the accused, with the consent of the parties.

The Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Reasi thereafter proceeded with the enquiry. Evidence having been recorded the complaint reached the stage of charge. It was at this stage that the accused respondents raised a plea in bar of the prosecution on the ground that Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted in application and that the Court could not take cognizance of the complaint, the same not having been made by the Court before whom the proceedings in the course of which the offence was committed were pending.

The trial court of Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Reasi, after having heard the parties on this question, allowed the plea to prevail and dismissed the complaint holding that the same could, not taken cognizance of, Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being the bar. The petitioner before this court approached the Sessions Judge, Udhampur, in revision who refused to interfere with the order passed by the trial Magistrate and dismissed the revision application. The present revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur, passed in revision.

2. For the reasons which I assign hereafter I feel that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document