The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in relation to the alleged forgery committed in the Court of Assistant Consolidation Officer.

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23. 9. 1999 passed by 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Revision No. 117 of 1998 whereby he allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 28. 8. 1998 passed by the learned C. J. M. , Rampur in Criminal Case No 2003 of 1998 under sections 420, 467, 468 and 417 IPC, P. S. Bilaspur, District Rampur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Major Sukh Dayal Singh the revisionist filed a written report at P. S. Bilaspur on 5. 4. 1997 alleging that his wife husband and son had agriculture land in village Chandiyan, P. S. Bilaspur. Since they were not living in the village at the relevant time the accused Rajendra Singh and Jogendra Singh, forged their signatures before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and got the land transferred in the name of Kulveer Singh, Kishan Singh and Himmat Singh. When the record was seen for the purpose of filing appeal it came to notice that even the original papers were replaced by forged documents. On that basis case was registered and subsequently charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Learned Magistrate summoned the accused and the accused persons filed objection 27 Ka and 29 Ka alleging that the alleged fraud if any was committed in the Court proceedings and therefore the prosecution was barred by section 195 Cr. P. C. and prayed for discharge. However learned Magistrate did not accept their contention and rejected their applications. Against that order a revision was filed in the lower Revisional Court which accepted the contention as raised by the accused persons and held that criminal proceedings were barred by section 195 Cr. P. C. Consequently he allowed the revision. Feeling aggrieved present revision has been filed.

3. I have heard Sri Apul Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri A. N. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party, learned A. G. A. and perused the material on record.

4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection that the revision is barred by limitation as it has been filed with delay of 485 days and that no reasonable explanation for the delay has been given by the revisionist. In this connection, learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that an application has been filed for condonation of delay and according to the learned Counsel the revisionist came to know for the first time on 19. 3. 2001 about the impugned order as he was not made party in the Criminal Revision filed by the opposite parties before the Sessions Judge. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has also contended that on 18. 3. 2001 deponent Smt. Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur had come to the Court of A. D. M. , Rampur and then on enquiry she came to know about the order passed in criminal revision for the first time and thereafter she informed the revisionist.

5. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has contended that this plea as taken by the revisionist that he was not impleaded as party in the revision is not acceptable because he was not a necessary party and was not required to be impleaded. This contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties cannot be accepted. If a criminal revision is filed accused should also implead the informant as he is aggrieved person.

6. It may be mentioned that there is reference in para-5 of the impugned order that notice was sent to the informant and also the special Counsel of the informant but no one appeared and thereafter learned Sessions Judge heard the learned Counsel for the State Government. But this order does not show whether the notice sent to the informant was served on informant or not. It does not show that the information given to the Special Counsel was received by him or not. In this connection, opposite parties have filed the certified copy of the order sheet with counter-affidavit as Annexure No. CA-7. The order sheet dated 30. 8. 1999 shows that the learned Court directed that the noti