The Court ruled that cognizance of certain offences related to a document produced in court is barred without a written complaint from the court, affecting how cases of forgery and abetment are prosecuted.

1. This reference is made under S.438, Criminal Procedure Code , by the learned Second Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, requesting this Court to quash, under S.215, Criminal Procedure Code , an order made by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navsari, committing the three opponents (1), Bhikhubhai Ranchhodji Desai (2) Bai Padmavati Deyaramdas and (3) Lallubhai Laxmidas, to take their trial for various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code . The reference came up for hearing before Bhagwati, J. on 11th of July 1963. The learned Judge felt that the reference raised an important point of law, and therefore, referred the same for decision to a Division Bench.

2. The facts are as follows : Survey No. 205 situated in the village Chekhad, Navsari Taluka, belongs to a temple known as the Radha - Krishna Pancha Pipla Temple situated in the village Dhaman. That temple has been declared to be a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. One Thakordas was the mahant of the temple. One Dayaramdas managed the temple and its properties as the constituted attorney of mahant Thakordas. Thakordas made a gift of survey No. 205 to Bal Padmavati, respondent No. 2. The prosecution alleges that this gift was made to circumvent the trust proceedings. Padmavati agreed to sell this survey No. 205 to Lallubhai Laxmidas, respondent No. 3. She signed a document written on a stamp paper alleged to have been issued on 15th of January 1954 and bearing the same date. That document is Exhibit 83 in the proceedings. This document is a contract of sale by which respondent No. 2 agreed to sell survey No. 205 to respondent No. 3, This document was produced before the Agricultural Lands - Tribunal, Navsari, in a proceeding under S.32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. That proceeding terminated sometime thereafter. On 20th of June 1961, one Dahyabhai Haribhai of Dhaman Village filed a first information before the P. S. I., Navsari, in which he alleged that the document Exhibit 83 was a forgery. The allegation was that the stamp paper on which the contract of sale was written was not issued on 15-1-1954 as it purported to have been done, but that the stamp paper was issued sometime between 10th of March 1955 and 25th of September 1959; that a false endorsement was not made on the stamp paper that it was issued on 15th January 1954; that a false entry was made In the stamp register that the stamp was issued on 15th of January 1954, although, in fact, no such stamp paper was issued on that day; that the contract for sale was also written sometime between 10th of March 1955 and 25th of September 1959 and that, although it was signed during the aforesaid period, it was actually antedated by inserting the date of 15th of January 1954