ORDER O.P. Trivedi, J.
1. This is an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Syed Alley Eba Rizvi. an Advocate practising in the district of Sultanpur.
2. The brief facts leading to this application are these:
3. One Allah Rahman was tried for theft of a bullock under Section 379. I. P. C. in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur. He was being defended by the Syed Alley Eba Rizvi, Advocate, in the said case. In defence a receipt Ext. Kha-1 was filed before the said Magistrate through a list of documents under the signature of Syed Alley Eba Rizvi with the endorsement "through Syed Alley Eba Rizvi." On the basis of this receipt it was sought to be proved by the accused that the bullock belonged to him having been purchased by him from Mohammad Hanif. This plea of the accused was disbelieved by the Magistrate who found also that the receipt had been forged for the purposes of the case. Allah Rahman was convicted and sentenced under Section 379, I. P. C. In the course of the judgment the Magistrate made the remarks:
"He was the counsel of the accused and he filed this document knowing it to be a forged document and used it as a genuine document, and as such his responsibility is no less than that of the persons mentioned above who participated in forging the document Ext. Kha-1 and fabricating false evidence for the purposes of this case. Sri Alley Eba Rizvi Advocate used this forged document having known it to be a forged document as a genuine document although he knew it to be a forged document."
An appeal was filed by Syed Alley Eba Rizvi before the Sessions Judge who upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence. In that appeal an application had been moved by Syed Alley Eba Rizvi, Advocate, praying for expunction of the above remarks which were contained against him in the judgment of the trial Court. That application was rejected by the Sessions Judge on the ground that he possessed no power of directing expunction of remarks. It is in these circumstances that the present application has been moved. It may be stated here that on 28-8-1968 the said Magistrate issued a notice to Mohammad Hanif executant of the receipt, Ext. Kha-1, and to the witnesses of the receipt, namely, Ismile and Saheb Din. Notice was also issued to Syed Alley Eba Rizvi and Allah Rehman asking them to show cause why a complaint for commission of offences punishable under Sections 471 and 196/109, I. P. C. should not be made against them under Section 476, Cr. P. C. Through the present application it is prayed that the remarks made by the A D. M. (J) in his judgment against the Advocate should be expunged and the proceedings drawn by the said Magistrate against him under Section 476. Cr. P. C. quashed
4. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Assistant Government Advocate and I am of the opinion that the A. D. M. (J) acted contrary to law in making the impugned remarks in his judgment against Syed Alley Eba Rizvi.
5. Under Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness 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 court is required at the time of delivery of the judgment or final order to record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing against the said witness. Now it is quite clear from a reading of the provision contained in Section 479A that it is confined in its operation only against a person appearing before a court as a witness. That being so, the A. D. M. (J) could have been perfectly within his right to make any remarks in his judgment under Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure against any person who had appeared before him as a witness on the question of fabrication of false evidence, but he had no jurisdiction to make any such remarks as he did against the said Advocate because admittedly he had never appeared before the Magistrate as a witness.
The only provision under which the Magistrate could proceed against the Advocate is the one contained in Section 476, Cr. P. C. Section 476(1) provides that when any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195; Subsection (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court, may, after such preliminary enquiry, if any as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court. If the Magistrate was of the opinion that there was reason to think that an offence punishable under Section 196. I. P. C. had been committed by Syed Alley Eba Rizvi. then the only course open for him was to institute a preliminary enquiry against him by a show cause notice and to record a finding after giving an opportunity of hearing. When the impugned remarks were recorded by him in the judgment no such enquiry was made and the Advocate had no opportunity of making his submissions. The remarks contained in the judgment in so far as the Advocate is concerned, therefore, are illegal and cannot be allowed to stand. The. Magistrate has no doubt started a preliminary enquiry in terms of Section 476 (1). Cr. P. C. against the applicant and he has not yet recorded a finding on hearing the Advocate. That enquiry is in accordance with law and, therefore, there is no question of passing an order quashing that enquiry. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the proceedings under Section 476, Cr. P. C. cannot be accepted.
6. A submission is made by the learned counsel for the applicant to the effect that the Magistrate could not proceed against the applicant under Section 476, Cr. P. C. also because he was not a party to the proceeding in which the offence is said to have been committed. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the case of Sant Ram Bhatia v. State, 1966 All LJ 838. In that case a certain Advocate by name Sant Ram Bhatia was committed to the Court of Session on charges under Sections 476 and 471, I. P. C. whereupon an application was filed in the High Court under Section 215, Cr. P. C. for the quashing of the said order of commitment. The ground urged was that the proceedings under Section 476, Cr. P. C. could not be taken against Sri Sant Ram Bhatia in respect of the offence which he was said to have committed because the offence with which he was charged was covered by Clause (c) of Section 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention found favour with the court and it was held that the proceeding under Section 476, Cr. P. C. in respect of offences falling under Clause (c) of Section 195, Sub-section (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure can be taken only against a party to a proceeding and since the applicant was acting only as a counsel for the accused he was obviously not a party to the proceeding and, therefore, the proceedings taken against him under Section 476, Cr. P. C. were not warranted by law.
This ruling is clearly distinguishable because in this case offence punish able under Section 196, I. P. C. is alleged to have been committed by the applicant which offence falls under Clause (b) of Section 195. Sub-section (1) and not the residuary Clause (c) of the same section. In respect of offences falling under Clause (b) of Sub-section fl) of Section 195, Cr. P. C., proceedings under Section 476, may be instituted against any person. The scope of that clause is not confined as in the case Clause (c) to a party to a proceeding. Therefore, it cannot be successfully maintained that the proceeding under Section 476, Cr. P. C. against the applicant in respect of offence punishable under Section 196, I. P. C. is illegal.
7. For the aforesaid reasons I direct that the following remarks contained in the judgment of the A. D. M. (J), Sultanpur, dated 23-8-68 shall be expunged.
"He was the counsel of the accused and he filed this document knowing it to be a forged document and used it as a genuine document, and as such his responsibility is no less than that of the persons mentioned above who participated in forging the document Ext. Kha-1 and fabricating false evidence for the purposes of this case. Sri Alley Eba Rizvi Advocate used this forged document having known it to be a forged document as a genuine document although he knew it to be a forged document."
8. The proceedings before the Magistrate under Section 476, Cr. P. C. may continue against the applicant Advocate and others in accordance with law.