ORDER :- Vivekanand has filed this revision against the revisional judgment and order of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, rejecting his application praying for the dropping of the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 471, I. P. C.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision lie within a narrow compass. It appears that the applicant presented an application before the Compensation Officer, Meja on the 19th, November, 1958 praying for the withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 80-98 P. which was payable as compensation to one Bans Bahadur. The application was accompanied by a Vakalatnama purporting to be signed by Bans Bahadur. The case for the prosecution is that the said Vakalatnama was forged by the applicant as Bans Bahadur had died some time before, and that after withdrawing Rs 80.98 P. on the strength of it, he misappropriated the said sum. When the matter came to the knowledge of the A. D. M. (E), Allahabad he made a report to the Police and the latter after enquiry submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant under sections 406, 420, 467 and 471 I. P. C.

3. When the case came up for hearing in the trial Court the applicant took a preliminary objection that as the present prosecution was in respect of offences relating to a document given in evidence the learned Magistrate could take cognizance of them only on the complaint in writing of the court before which the said document was produced, or some court to which such court was subordinate, and as no such a complaint had been made he could not take cognizance of those offences under Section 195(1)(c) Cr. P. C. Both the Courts below rejected this objection thus giving rise to the present revision.

4. On behalf of the applicant his learned counsel urged two contentions in support of this revision. His first contention was that as the offence under section 471 I. P. C. was allegedly committed by the applicant as a party to the proceeding initiated by him in the court of the Compensation Officer, Meja and as it was in respect of a document produced by him in that court, Section 195 (l)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code barred the Magistrate from taking cognizance of that offence except on the complaint in writing of the said court or of some other court to which such Court was subordinate. His second contention was that as all the other offences for which the applicant was also charged, namely, sections 406, 420, and 467 I. P. C. were all cognate to the offence under Section 471 I. P. C. and, in fact and substance stemmed from it the Magistrate could not take cognizance of those offences as well under Section 195 (l)(c) Cr. P. C. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that both these contentions are well founded. I shall, therefore, proceed to give my reasons of coming to that conclusion after quoting the material parts of Section 195(1) Cr. P. C. Thus quoted Sec. 195(1) reads as follows:

"195(1) No Court shall take cognizance

(a) .................. ….

(b)........................

(c) "of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under Section 471, sec. 475 or Section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such court, or of some other court to which such court is subordinate."

5. A plain reading of this sub-section shows that two conditions are necessary for its applicability, (1) that the offence mentioned therein should be committed by a party to any proceeding in any court, and (2) that such offence should be in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding. So far as the question whether the Compensation Officer is a court or not, the learned Civil and Sessions Judge has held and, in my opinion rightly, that it is a court. It was not disputed, as indeed it could not be disputed, that the document in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document