ORDER B.K. Sharma, J.
1. This is a revision against an order dated 27-9-1996 passed by the then Vlth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 2171/IX/96, State v. Chanda Khan and 13 others relating to case Crime No. 9 of 1996, under Sections 420/467/468/471, I.P.C., Police Station Sureer, District Mathura, whereby he rejected the application of the accused-revisionists that the cognizance of the case by him was barred by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The relevant portion of Section 195, Cr.P.C. is as under :-
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to docufhents given in evidence; (1) No Court shall take cognizance :-
(a) (i) to (b) (i)....
(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii)....
except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
3. In this revision, an interesting question has arisen as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One Hakim alias Habib died. On his death, mutation application was moved before the Tehsildar, Manth, District Mathura (Revenue Court). The said application was registered as Case No. 246 of 1995 under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act for mutation on the basis of a Will-deed dated 15-2-1995 alleged to be executed by Hakim alias Habib deceased. According to the revisionists, the death took place on 14-4-1995 and before that on 15-2-1995 the deceased Hakim executed the Will in favour of revisionists. On 5-1-1996, opposite party No. 2 S'mt. Kishar Jahan moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Mathura on which basis case Crime No. 9 of 1996, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. was registered. The allegations were that the said Will was a forged document and that the offences under Sections 420/ 467/468/471, I.P.C. were committed by the present accused-revisionists. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the accused-revisionists were ordered to be summoned by the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 21-6-1996. The learned counsel for the accused-revisionists moved an application before the learned Magistrate claiming that the jurisdiction of Magr istrate to take the cognizance was barred under Section 195, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the application by the impugned order dated 27-9-1996 holding that if a forgery has been committed in respect of any document before its filing in Court a complaint by concerned Court is not needed and that the Magistrate could take cognizance at the instance of a private party. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred by the accused-revisionists.
4. The simple question is whether the provision of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied only to a case where the forgery has been committed in respect of a document during the period it was in custodia legis as claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 or it would operate also to cover all cases of forgery in a document produced in evidence before the Court whether the forgery was committed in respect of the document before its filing in the Court or during the period if(the document) remained in the custody of the Court as claimed by the learned counsel for the revisionists. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revisionists has relied on the following authorities :-
(1) 1987 All Cri C 63 : 1987 All LJ 367, Narvadeshwar Tiwari v. State of U.P; (2) 1984 Cri LJ 1692 (Cal); (3) 1996 All Cri C 343 : 1996 Cri LJ 2304 (SC), Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh.
In support of his propositions. He has also relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court Ram Khelawan v. State of U.P., reported in (1998) 1 ACJ Pt. 1, page 66 : (1998 Cri LJ 2331).
5. These authorities do support the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists. The Apex Court in the authority of Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh (1996 Cri LJ 2304) (supra) said that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the foundation for forgery, if produced before the Court or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) gets attracted and the criminal Court is prohibited to take cognizance of offence unless a complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure pre-scribed under Section 340 of the Code by or on behalf of the Court.
6. It was said in the decision of Full Bench in the case of Ram Khelawan v. State of U.P. (1998 All LJ 802) (supra) as under (at Pp. 813-14 of All LJ):
...if by the words 'while the document is in custody of the Court' it was meant that the bar would apply only when the forgery has been committed in regard to a document while it was in custody of the Court and not otherwise, then we find ourselves to be not in agreement with the said interpretation. However if the term 'while the document is in custody of the Court' is to be interpreted to mean that a document which has been forged and has close nexus or has proximity to the proceedings in the Court and the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii)'of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply in relation of such a document only when that document is in custody of the Court, then this interpretation meets our full approval.
The Full Bench however, said that the provision of Section 195, Cr.P.C. has no application to a case in which such a document is fabricated long before its production or its being tendered in evidence.
7. However, the learned counsel for the accused-revisionist has relied upon the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sachinda Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (1998) 1 JT (SC) 370 : 1998 Cri LJ 1565. In this authority the question before the Apex Court was directly considered and answered by it. The Apex Court held that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court. This judgment has been rendered by the Full Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges (Hon. M.M. Punchhi C.J. I.; Hon. K.T. Thomas and Hon. M. Srinivasan, JJ.) where the point in issue was directly considered and decided. So, I am bound to follow this latest view of the Apex Court.
8. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the accused-revisionists that no distinct and separate offences under Sections 419/420, I.P.C. made out other than the one under Section 195, Cr.P.C: and so no cognizance can be taken of the private complaint even to the extent of the offence under Sections 419/420, I.P.C. He has cited the authority of this Court in the case of Padohi Ram v. State of U.P., reported in 1990 Cri LJ 495 : 1989 All LJ 186 but in view of what has been stated above, it is not necessary to enter into the question whether on the material before the Magistrate the offence under Sections 419/420, I.P.C. was also made out or not.
9. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is perfectly valid in the eye of law. So, this revision fails and is dismissed.