JUDGMENT Kanhaiya Lal, J.
1. In a certain case a Will was produced by the applicant which was found to be a forged document. The Trial Judge, after having come to that finding, directed that the matter should be put up again before him for orders after his decision had bceome final. No appeal was, however, filed. Meanwhile, the Trial Judge was transferred and was succeeded by another Judge, The order of his predecessor was brought to his notice and he directed the prosecution of the applicant under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on charges under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the successor of the Trial Judge could not have passed that; but that, as was held in Bahadur v. Eradatullah Mallick 6 Ind. Cas. 801 : 37 C. 642 : 14 C.W.N. 799 : 12 C.L.J. 45 : 11 Cr.L.J. 407, the word 'Court" in Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes the successor of the Judge before whom the alleged offence was committed or to whose notice the commission of it was brought in the course of a judicial proceeding. In Tilak Pandey v. Emperor 29 Ind. Cas. 97 : 37 A. 344 : 13 A.L.J. 466 : 16 Cr.L.J. 465, it was laid down that there was nothing in Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which required a Court to take action, if at all, immediately after the conclusion of the case, in which the offenses were said to have been committed or within any fixed time thereafter. The Court below was, therefore, justified in taking action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in continuation of the order passed by his predecessor. The application is, therefore, rejected.