The bar against taking cognizance of an offence at the instance of a private complainant, created by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the new Cr. P. C., applied also to cases where the offence had been committed prior to the institution of the proceedings in which the concerned document was filed or produced.

( 1 ) ON 2-1-1978 applicant Ram Pal filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur, against Hira Lai Ram Surat Chameli and Mita alleging that in a mutation case initiated by his wife Smt. Fadhika Devi, in the Court of Tahsildar, Saidpur, Hira Lai filed a forged document purporting to be deed of. agreement dated 18-12-1973 executed by one Smt, Purnamasi Devi, and prayed that Hira Lai who had filed the document as well as Ram Surat the scribe thereof and chameli and Mita who had set themselves up as attesting witnesses be prosecuted for committing offences Under Sections 465, 467, 468, 419 and 420 I. P. C. The Judicial Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, took cognizence of an offence Under Section 468 IPC and summoned the accused named in the complaint.

( 2 ) THE accused appeared before the Court and raised a preliminary objection to the effect that cognizance of the offence, on the basis of the complaint filed by Ram Pal Singh, was barred under the provisions of Section 195 Criminal P. C. Learned Magistrate while overruling the objection observed that in the first place the provisions of Section 195 of the Criminal P. C. were not attracted in the instant case inasmuch as that section specifies various offences in relation to which the bar created by it applies but then an offence punishable Under Section 468 is not one of the offences contemplated by that section. Further as the possibility that the document, which is said to have been forged by the accused persons, might have been forged prior to the institution of the mutation proceedings in the Court of Tahsildar, cannot be ruled out, the bar created by Section 195 of the Cr. P. C. will not be attracted.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved, the accused went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, vide his order dated 19th July, 1980 allowed the revision and held that in the instant case cognizance taken by the Magistrate of the offence under s, 468 IPC was barred by the provisions contained in Section 195 of the new Cr. P. C. Before the addl. Sessions Judge, learned Counsel for the complainant placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Legal Remembrancer of Govt of West Bengal v. Haridas Mundra manu/sc/0148/1975 , AIR1976 SC 2225 , 1976 Crilj1732 , (1976 )1 SCC555 , [1976 ]2 scr933 , 1976 (8 )UJ133 (SC ) wherein while considering the corresponding provision contained in the Cr. P. C. 1898, the Supreme Court had ruled that the bar created by that section became applicable only when the offence of the nature specified therein was committed by the accused after he had become a party to the proceeding in which the document in relation to which the offence was committed, was filed. The learned Judge held that the aforementioned ruling of the Supreme Court was not relevant inasmuch as the legal position had undergone a change in the new Cr. P. C. with which he was concerned. After interpreting the provisions of the new Code learned Addl. Sessions Jud. ge held that the bar created by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii)also applied to cases where offences of the nature specified therein were committed prior to the institution of the proceeding in which the document, relating to which the offence was said to have been committed, had been filed. The Addl. Sessions Judge further held that an offence under S- 468, Cr. P. C. was an offence of the nature described in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) i. e. , one that was covered by the offence described by Section 463 I. P. C.

( 4 ) THE complainant then came up in revision before this Court. Before the learned single Judge (Bakshi, J.) who heard the revision, he relied upon a decision by M. M. Gupta, J. , in the case of raj Narain Dubey v. State, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1808 of 1980, decided on 23rd of Jan. , 1981 and contended that the view taken by the Sessions Judge that cognizance of the offence under Section 468 IPC