ORDER :- This is an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal, Procedure by Syed Alley Eba Rizvi, an Advocate practising in the district of Sultanpur.

2. The brief facts leading to this application are these :

3. One Allah Rahman was tried for theft of a bullock under Section 379, I. P. C. in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur. He was being defended by the Syed Alley Eba Rizvi, Advocate, in the said case. In defence a receipt Ext. Kha-1 was filed before the said Magistrate through a list of documents under the signature of Syed Alley Eba Rizvi with the endorsement "through Syed Alley Eba Rizvi." On the basis of this receipt it was sought to be proved by the accused that the bullock belonged to him having been purchased by him from Mohammad Hanif. This plea of the accused was disbelieved by the Magistrate who found also that the receipt had been forged for the purposes of the case. Allah Rahman was convicted and sentenced under Section 379, I. P. C. In the course of the judgment the Magistrate made the remarks :

"He was the counsel of the accused and he filed this document knowing it to be a forged document and used it as a genuine document, and as such his responsibility is no less than that of the persons mentioned above who participated in forging the document Ext. Kha-1 and fabricating false evidence for the purposes of this case. Sri Alley Eba Rizvi Advocate used this forged document having known it to be a forged document as a genuine document although he knew it to be a forged document."

An appeal was filed by Syed Alley Eba Rizvi before the Sessions Judge who upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence. In that appeal an application had been moved by Syed Alley Eba Rizvi, Advocate, praying for expunction of the above remarks which were contained against him in the judgment of the trial Court. That application was rejected by the Sessions Judge on the ground that he possessed no power of directing expunction of remarks. It is in these circumstances that the present application has been moved. It may be stated here that on 28-8-1968 the said Magistrate issued a notice to Mohammad Hanif executant of the receipt, Ext. Kha-1, and to the witnesses of the receipt, namely, Ismile and Saheb Din. Notice was also issued to Syed Alley Eba Rizvi and Allah Rehman asking them to show cause why a complaint for commission of offences punishable under Secs. 471 and 196/109, I. P. C. should not be made against them under Section 476, Cr. P. C. Through the present application it is prayed that the remarks made by the A D. M. (J) in his judgment against the Advocate should be expunged and the proceedings drawn by the said Magistrate against him under Section 476. Cr. P. C. quashed

4. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Assistant Government Advocate and I am of the opinion that the A. D. M. (J) acted contrary to law in making the impugned remarks in his judgment against Syed Alley Eba Rizvi.

5. Under Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding, the court is required at the time of delivery of the judgment or final order to record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing against the said witness. Now it is quite clear from a reading of the provision contained in Section 479A that it is confined in its operation only against a person appearing before a court as a

witness. That being so, the A. D. M. (J) could have been perfectly within his right to make any remarks in his judgment under Sec. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure against any person who had a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document