The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of a complaint based on forgery.

Happell, J.

1. This is a petition to revise an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tenali, made in P.R.C. No. 11 of 1944, overruling objections to his jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 467 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. A promissory note was brought into existence on the 12th September, 1943, for the principal sum of Rs. 450 which purported to be executed by the complainant in favour of the second accused. It was written by the first accused and attested by the third accused. This promissory note was assigned to the fourth accused and he issued a registered notice to the complainant demanding the amount due under the promissory note and "on the complainant denying that he had executed the promissory note, filed S.C. No. 15 of 1944, on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Tenali, on the footing of the promissory note. The promissory note was sent to the Government Hand-writing Expert who gave the opinion that the finger-print on the promissory note was not that of the complainant. On that, the fourth accused had the suit dismissed. The complaint now in question was based on the above facts and it was dismissed as against the fourth accused under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the complaint against him could only be given by the Subordinate Judges Court, Tenali. With regard to the other accused, it was argued on their behalf that the complaint disclosed offences under Sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, so that the case fell within the provisions of Section 195 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, even though the allegations also disclosed an offence under Section 467 which is. not mentioned in Section 195. The Sub-Magistrate overruled the objections on the ground that offences under Sections 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code, are minor offences as compared with Section 467, relying on a decision of Lakshmana Rao, J., in Gumswami Chettiar v. Emperor AIR1941Mad323 .

2. The learned Magistrate has not referred to two decisions of Benches of this Court. Ravanappa Reddi, In re (1931) 62 M.L.J. 735 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 343 and In re Appadorai Nainar (1935)69MLJ812 , without reference to which the decision in Giiruswami Chettiar v. Emperor AIR1941Mad323 cannot be understood. In these I two cases it was held that if the facts disclosed an offence under Section 193, Indian I Penal Code, parties could not be allowed to evade the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing a complaint under another provision of the Indian Penal Code. In Guruswami Chettiar v. Emperor AIR1941Mad323 , Lakshmana Rao, J., referred to but distinguished Appadorai Nainar, In re (1935)69MLJ812 , on the ground that in the case before him there was no question of evading the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of the case were that a pleader had used a forged receipt in the course of proceedings against him under the Legal Practitioners Act. The Court thereafter was moved to make a complaint against the pleader for an offence under Section 403 and against the maker and the two attestors of the receipt for an offence under Section 467, Indian Penal Code. For reasons that are not material the Court did not think it necessary to make a complaint against the pleader and, as regards the other three respondents, it was also of opinion that a complaint need not be made because they could he prosecuted for an offence under Section 467, Indian Penal Code, without a complaint from the Court and the offence under Section 193 which could also be said to have been committed did not require a complaint because as compared with the offence under Section 467 it was a minor offence. This decision, as already indicated, was upheld in revision by Lakshmana Rao, J.

3. In the present case the aggrieved party filed a petition in the Civil Court asking that Court to make a complaint against the four accused and also himself filed a complai