ORDER Gyanendra Kumar, J.
1. These three revisions can be disposed of by a single judgment, inasmuch as they arise out of a single proceeding.
2. Jia Lal, (who is applicant in all these three revisions) filed a complaint on 22-5-61 under Section 447 and certain other sections of the I. P. C. against Allah Bux and Pancham, opposite parties, before the Nyaya Panchayat Pachgain on the allegations that he. was the owner of plot No. 171 situated in village Garni Harnather and that the aforesaid accused had unlawfully constructed their houses thereon. The two accused set up a plea that they had been granted permission by the complainant s mother Smt. Bhagwani Devi to construct their houses for which they had paid due consideration to her Karinda Sheru (opposite party No. 2 in Revision No. 1713). In support of their contention they respectively filed ijazatnamas Exts. Kha-1 and Kha-2 said to have been executed by the applicant's mother in their favour. Later on the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat was quashed with the result that the complaint was transferred to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jalesar in whose court as well, the two accused relied upon the alleged ijazatnamai Exts. Kha-1 and Kha-2 said to have been executed in their favour. In support of his case Allah Bux had produced . D. W. Ganga Singh, scribe of Ext. Kha-1, to prove the document. However, Ranna Shah who was the attesting witness of Ext. Kha-1 was not produced.
3. Likewise Pancham accused had produced defence witness Triloki who was the attesting witness of his deed Ex. Kha-2. But he did not produce Chandra Sahai, scribe of the document. Both the accused had further produced Sheru opposite party to depose that the said ijazatnamas had been executed in his presence. The learned Magistrate however, accepted the prosecution case, and rejected the defence set up by the accused as false. Regarding the ijazatnamas he recorded a categorical finding that they were forged documents. Accordingly, by his judgment and order dated 24-9-62 the learned Magistrate convicted both the accused Allah Bux and Pancham under Section 447 I. P. C. Two days later i.e. on 26-9-62 Jia Lal, complainant, filed an application before the learned Magistrate praying for taking proceedings under Section 476 Cr. P. C. against the two accused as well as D. Ws. Ganga Singh, Triloki and Sheru and also Chandra Sahai, scribe of Ext. Kha-2 and Ram Sahai attesting witness of Ext. Kha-1 who had not been produced.
The allegations in the said application were that all the persons aforesaid had formed a conspiracy and in pursuance thereof had forged Exts. Kha-1 and Kha-2 and had further produced false evidence in court in support thereof. The plea of the persons who were arrayed as opposite parties to the aforesaid application under Section 476 Cr. P. C. was that that Section did not apply to the case and that the complainant's application was barred by Section 479-A Cr. P. C. The learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the matter was covered by Section 476 Cr. P. C. and, therefore, directed a complaint to be lodged against seven persons, namely, Allah Bux, Pancham, Triloki, Ganga Singh, Ranna Shah, Chandra Sahai and Sheru the first six being opposite parties in Criminal Revn. No. 1714 of 1963 while Sheru is opposite party No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 1713 of 1963, the third opposite party being Chandra Sahai, who is opposite party No. 7 in Criminal Revision-No. 1714 of 1963. In Criminal Revision No. 1671 of 1964 the opposite parties are only Allah Bux, Ganga Singh and Runna Shah. Accordingly on 5-3-63 the learned Judicial Magistrate filed a complaint against the aforesaid persons under See Sections 120B, 193, 196, 467, 471. 420 and 511 read with Section 109. I. P C.
4. The two accused went up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge against their conviction and sentence; they along with three others, who were sought to be prosecuted under Section 476 Cr. P. C. also filed a separate appeal under Section 476-B Cr. P. C. before the Sessions Judge. The appeal against the conviction and sentence of the accused was decided by the learned Sessions Judge on 9-1-1963 on the finding that there should not have been a joint trial of Allah Bux and Pancham who were alleged to have committed trespass on, different dates and who claimed their title under different ijazatnamas. He accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the court below by his order dated 9-1-63 and remanded the case for retrial after splitting up the cases of Allah Bux and Pancham. Later on he also allowed the other appeal by his judgment dated 22-8-63 under Section 476-B Cr. P. C. on the finding that the various sections for which those appellants were being prosecuted were not covered by Section 479-A Cr. P. C. "and hence the proper section applicable to the present case would be Section 476 Cr. P. C. all the more so because one of the appellants, namely, Ranna Shah did not figure in that complaint in any capacity at all.' But almost in the same breath he recorded a finding that Allah Bux and Pancham had forged Exts. Kha-1 and Kha-2 and their witnesses had deposed falsely in their support and, therefore, they could be proceeded against under Section 479-A Cr. P. C.
In the end the learned Judge observed that the main case had already been remanded for fresh trial where the matter could be re-agitated by the complainant. In the result he quashed the complaint which had been filed against the opposite parties.
5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22-8-63 Jia Lal complainant has come up to this Court in these two connected revisions i.e. Criminal Revisions Nos. 1713 and 1714 of 1963
6. Before proceeding further with the points in controversy. I would like to mention a few facts more. After the remand of the complainant's case for being split up in two separate cases relating to Allah Bux find Pancham, another Magistrate Sri Babu Lal got seized of the matter and started the trials ab initio. This time neither Allah Bux nor Pancham placed their reliance on Exts. Kha-I and Kha-2 nor alleged any permission having been granted to" them by the mother of the complainant, though they had clearly set up this defence when there was a single trial against them and had further produced witnesses in support of the aforesaid plea. Before Sri Babu Lal their only plea was that their houses did not stand on plot No. 177 belonging to the complainant and thus they had not committed any offence under Section 447 I. P. C. However, in the case against Allah Bux accused, opposite parties Ganga Singh and Ranna Shah, were examined as court witnesses under Section 540 Cr. P. C. by the Magistrate who came to the conclusion that the ijazatnama Ext. Kha-2 was a forged document and that the accused and both these witnesses were responsible for creating the same. He also found C. W. Ganga Singh, guilty of perjury and ordered his prosecution under Section 193 I. P. C. The Magistrate further came to the conclusion that Allah Bux accused had trespassed upon the complainant's land and accordingly sentenced him to undergo one month's rigorouse imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-.
7. Allah Bux went up in appeal against his conviction to the Sessions Judge. But no appeal was filed under Section 476-B, Cr. P. C. challenging the order for prosecution of the accused and C. Ws. Ganga Singh and Ranna Shah for forgery and/or perjury. Nevertheless the learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal and upholding his conviction under Section 447, I. P. C. by his judgment dated 22-7-64, also set aside the order of the Magistrate directing an inquiry against Allah Bux. Ganga Singh and Ranna Shah for forgery and/or perjury, obviously on the ground that on remand Allah Bux accused had not placed any reliance on the ijazatnama Ex. Kha-2, nor had he produced any witness in support thereof; as such the summoning of the witnesses under Section 540 Cr. P. C. and recording their statements regarding the authenticity of the document did not amount to production of false evidence by Allah Bux accused particularly when the ijazatnama was not relied upon by him at the new trial. He was of the view that the word 'witness' used in Section 479-A. Cr. P. C. had reference to a witness who had been produced in the court by a party and not who had been summoned by the court under Section 540, Cr. P. C. The judgment and order dated 22-7-64 has given rise to the third revision (Criminal Revision No. 1671 of 1964).
8. It has been contended on behalf of of the opposite parties in Criminal Revisions Nos. 1713 and 1714 of 1964 that their prosecution under Section 476 Cr. P. C. was wholly illegal and that if at all they could be prosecuted only under Section 479-A Cr. P. C. and inasmuch as the Magistrate had not recorded requisite findings at the lime of the delivery of judgment in the original case, no proceedings for their prosecution could be taken later on.
9. In order to arrive at the proper conclusion it is necessary to consider certain Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P. C provides that no court shall take cognizencc of any offence punishable under Sections 193. 194. 195. 196. 199, 200. 205. 206. 207, 208, 209. 210. 211 and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any court, except on the complaint in writing of such court. Sub-section (1) (e) of Section 195 further provides that a court shall not take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections. 471, 475 and 476 I. P. C. (i.e. offences relating to production of forged document in evidence) except on complaint in writing of such court. It is noteworthy that Section 195 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. contemplates the commission of enumerated offences both "in. or in relation to any proceeding in any court". In the instant case the ijazatnamas Exts. Kha-1 and 2 had been actually filed and proved by the evidence of defence witnesses in the then legal proceeding pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate. Jalesar and, therefore, the said Magistrate was competent to lodge a complaint against the seven opposite parties inter alia under Sections 193, 196 and 471 I. P. C. which clearly fall within the ambit of Section 195 (1) (b) and (c) Cr. P C.
10. This takes us to the controversy about the scope of Section 476 and Section 479-A Cr. P. C. It will be convenient to consider the scope of the latter section first. The perusal of the section shows that its sphere is rather limited. Proceedings under Section 479-A Cr. P. C. can be taken only against a witness actually appearing before a court. Therefore a complaint cannot be filed under this section against those per-sons who have not appeared as witnesses.
11. Out of seven persons sought to be prosecuted only Gangs Singh, Triloki and Sheru had appeared as defence witnesses. Allah Bux and Pancham were before the court in their capacity as accused. They had not appeared as witnesses. Likewise Ranna Shah, attesting witness of Ext. Kha-1 and Chandra Sahai, scri be of Ext. Kha-2 were not produced as witnesses. Therefore, in regard to these four persons proceedings under Section 479-A Cr. P. C. could not be taken. Secondly, the scope of this section is limited to perjury and fabrication of false evidence that is to say. relating to offences under Sections 193 arid 196 I. P. C. alone. The offence under Section 471 I. P. C. i. e. using a forged document as genuine, would be wholly beyond the scope of proceedings under Section 479-A Cr. P. C.
In the instant case it is not only the three defence witnesses, Triloki, Ganga Singh and Sheru who are sought to be proceeded against, but it is also the two accused and two other persons "who were directly concerned with the creation of the forged ijazatnamas, either as scribe or attesting witness who are sought to be prosecuted for forgery of these documents. In fact the principal offence charged against the seven persons is that of forgery of those documents, which were later on produced as evidence in the case in support of the pleas set up by Allah Bux and Pancham accused and for that purpose three witnesses were also produced to prove the genuineness of those documents. There might have been some controversy regarding these matters but the same has been set at rest by the three following pronouncements of their Lordships of the Supreme Court:
(1) Shabir Hussain v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC '816 'wherein it was emphasised that the scope of Sections 476 and 479-A Cr. P. C.
was altogether different and that "It is not" as if the Court has an option to proceed either under Section 479-A or under Section 476;and that: if it does not take action under Section 479-A it' can do so under Section 476 Cr. P. C."
(2) Babu Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 725 wherein it was observed by Shah, J.:
"It is clear from the terms of Sub-section (6) that the procedure prescribed thereby alone applies if the case falls within Sub-section (1) But Sub-section (1) has a limited operation; it applies only to the prosecution of a witness appearing before the Court, who has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. The sub-section may therefore be resorted to only in a case which falls within the first paragraph of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and allied Sections 194 and 195 when it is committed by a witness appearing before the Court ........ An offence punishable under Section 471 Indian Penal Code being one of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine any document which the accused knows Or has reason to believe to be a forged document, does not fall within the category contemplated by Section 479-A (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the authority of the Court to act under Section 476 of the Code is not impaired by Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A".
(3) In Raghubir Prasad v. Chammanlal, 1964 All LJ 627: (1964 (1) Cri LJ 489) it was emphasised by their lordships that it would be unreasonable to read into Section 479-A the meaning that where a person who appear to have committed an offence under Section 193, I. P. C. by giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence-appears to have committed some other offence also, say forgery, for the very purpose of fabricating false evidence, complaint for such other offence also can be made under Section 479-A of the Cr. P. C. It was pointed out that Section 479-A had no application to prosecution for offences other than an offence under Section 193 and cognate sections in Chapter XI and that as regards other offences Sections 476, 477, 478 and 479 continue to apply even after the enactment of Section 479-A Cr. P.C.
12. Here, as already pointed out earlier, the main accusation against the opposite parties is that they had forged or were a- party to the forging of the two ijazatnamas Exts. Kha-1 and 2 relied upon by Allah Bux and Pancham accused in support of their claim to the land, alleged to have been trespassed upon by them. Therefore proceedings under Section 476 Cr; P. C. alone would be competent and not those under Section 479-A Cr. P. C. Such being the settled law, Criminal Revisions Nos. 1713 and 1744 of 1963 are hereby allowed and the order- of the Sessions Judge dated 22-8-63 quashed. The complaint filed on 5-3-63 under ;Section 476; Cr. P. C. against the seven opposite parties shall proceed.
13. In view of my findings i'6cui'dea in Criminal Revisions Nos. 1713 and 1714 of 1963 it is no longer necessary to give any detailed judgment or finding in Criminal Revision Nos. 1671 of 1964, inasmuch as the earlier order of the Magistrate dated 5-3-63 directing prosecution of the opposite parties has been maintained by me. Subsequent orders on the point automatically fall through. Accordingly allow Criminal Revision No. 1671 of 1964 as well and quash the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 22-7-64 relating to the withdrawals of prosecution of Allah Bux, Ganga Singh and Ranna Shah. The order of the Magistrate dated 28-3-64 directing another prosecution of these three persons under Section 193 I. P. C. is also set aside, as they are already included in the proceedings under Section 476 Cr. P. C.
14. Let the record be sent down to the court below with the direction that the Magistrate would proceed with the matter as early as possible.