(1.) In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the question that the documents having been produced before the civil Court, no cognizance could have been taken by the trial Court and protection of Sec. 195(1)(b) Crimial P.C. was available to the petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent per contra urged that the Courts below have noted that only copies of the documents have been produced in the civil litigation and originals have not been filed. Since the copies have been filed and the originals have not been filed, the provisions of Sec. 195 Crimial P.C. are not attracted.
(3.) On the day, when the arguments were heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner was put a straight forward question regarding the nature of the documents filed. Today, he has only submitted that from the complaint it appears that the originals have been filed but from the order of the revisional Court where the question of protection under section 195(1)(c) was raised has given a clear finding that the copies have been filed. In view of the finding of the revisional Court, this Court is not persuaded that the originals have been filed. The question of protection under section 195(1)(c) could only arise when the originals have been filed because it relates to only originals and it is not relevant for the copies. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.