The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the jurisdiction of charges and the extent of the pardon granted to the approver in a case involving forgery of documents.

Baker—This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, East Berar, asking for the quashing of the charges against the accused Ismail and others, except the first charge under S.467/ 109, I.P.C., against Ismail and the charge under S. 467 against Yeshwant. The District Magistrate hag been heard as also the accused, who contend that the charges should be quashed altogether.

2. The facts as stated by the Sessions Judge in his order of reference are that in a suit for redemption of a possessory mortgage against one Ismail Panju he produced some fake kabuliyats with the object of showing that the rent of the land was lower than was actually paid and thus reducing the profits. The alleged forged kabuliyats were written by one Yeshwant and the thumb impressions of Mohan, the tenant of the land, were taken. The kabuliyats were subsequently attested by Baba, Shaikh Jalal and Shaikh Sajjan.

3. The Munsif of Pusad who tried the case being of opinion that the kabuliyats were forged took proceedings under S. 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, and made a complaint against all of them for an offence under S. 463, I.P.C., and against Ismail for an offence under S. 471, I.P.C., also. The Magistrate who tried the case tried all the accused jointly and framed charges as follows:--

(1) Against Ismail under, S. 467/ 109 for abetement of forgery of the kabuliyats which are Valuable securities. Under S. 471 for fraudulently using as genuine the forged kabuliyats. Under S. 193 for making a false statement in respect of the execution of the kabuliyats.

(2) Against Yeshwant under S. 467, I.P.C., for forgery of the kabuliyats.

(3) Against Baba Vithoba and Shaikh Sajjan, two of the attesting witnesses, under S. 467 for forging the said kabuliyats and under S. 193 for making a false statement in regard to the execution of the kabuliyats.

(4) Against Shaikh Jalal, the remaining attesting witness for forging the kabuliyats under S. 467, I.P.C.

4. During the proceedings a pardon was offered to Mohan, the alleged executant of the kabuliyats, and he was examined as an approver. He deposed as to the forgery of the kabuliyats by Yeshwant at the instigation of Ismail, but did not know anything about the attestations which were not made in his presence.

5. The Magistrate then in accordance with S. 337, Cl. (2A), Code of Criminal Procedure, committed all the accused to the Court of Sessions.

6. The Sessions Judge is of opinion that this is illegal for the following reasons:--

(1) The order of the 'Subordinate Judge constituting the complaint' made no reference to S.193, I.P.C., and the Magistrate could not take cognizance without a complaint of an offence under that section.

(2) The ruling in Gunwant v. Emperor,1917 13 NLR 35prohibits the joint trial of the scribe and attesting witnesses of an alleged forged document forgiving false evidence in support of that document.

(3) The pardon cannot have reference to the giving of false evidence but to the forgery only as regards Ismail and Yeshwant. S. 193 is not one of the offences covered by S. 337, Criminal P.C. S. 337, will apply only to the charge under S. 467 and cannot warrant the commitment for an offence under S. 193. It has no reference to the attestation by the attesting witnesses.

7. Hence they have been wrongly committed and the case in respect of them should be remanded, to the Magistrate for a fresh trial. So also the pardon has no reference to the charge under S. 471, against Ismail and the commitment under that head is also illegal as the case under that charge should be tried by the Magistrate.

8. The Sessions Judge desires to take up only the first head of charge (S. 467) against Ismail and Yeshwant. He is of opinion that the remaining parts of the trial should be taken up by the Magistrate as separate trials.

9. He therefore asks for orders under S. 215, Criminal P.C., quashing the commitment under all charges except the first part of the charge against Ismail and the charge against Yeshwant for forgery. He adds that