P.K.Jain - (1.) LIST has been revised. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar, brief holder for Sri D. S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. None appears for the opposite party.
(2.) BY his order dated 19.2.86 the learned Magistrate allowed the objection raised by the accused persons that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was barred by the provisions of Section 195, Cr. P.C. Inasmuch as the document alleged to be forged was filed before revenue authorities, in mutation proceedings as well as before civil court in a suit for cancellation of sale-deed. The complainant preferred revision against the said order which was allowed by the learned revisional court on the ground that there was no material on record showing that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate subsequent to the filing of the document in the civil court or before the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings. The learned revisional court consequently by setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate directed him to decide the objections of the accused persons afresh giving specific finding as to when the document was filed before revenue authorities and before the civil court. Bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P.C. could be pleaded only 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. If the document alleged to be forged or fabricated has already been produced or given in evidence in proceedings in any court, the cognizance can be taken by the court only upon the complaint in writing of that court before which the document is produced or given in evidence. However in case complaint is filed and cognizance is taken by the court before producing or giving in evidence of a document in proceedings before any court, then the bar under the above provision shall not apply. It is only in cases where cognizance is taken by the court subsequent to the production of document or filing of the same in evidence in a proceeding in any court that cognizance cannot be taken by the Magistrate or the court concerned without the complaint of the court before whom the document is produced or given in evidence. The learned Magistrate while allowing the objection of the accused persons, should have given a specific finding that the document in question had already been produced in evidence in any proceedings before the court prior to taking cognizance of the offence. The Sessions Judge has committed no error in setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate and in directing decision afresh on the plea of the accused persons regarding bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii). Cr. P.C.
(3.) REVISION is accordingly dismissed. Stay order dated 28.1.87 is vacated.;