- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri VP. srivastava and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS revision under Section 397/401, Cr, P. C. has been filed against the order dated 26-6-1997, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kasia district Kushi Nagar by which the objections of the applicant were rejected. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows: The allegation against the applicants was that they got a forged sale-deed ex ecuted. They are, therefore, being prosecuted under Section 465/467/468 and 120-B, I. P. C The applicants filed ob jections that prosecution is barred by Sec tion 195, Cr. P. C. for the reason that al leged deed was filed before the Consolida tion Officer for mutation, that therefore, Consolidation Officer alone could have filed complaint. This contention is not ac cepted and therefore, present revision has been preferred. In view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1121: 1998 JIC 838 (SC), the contention is not correct and was rightly repelled by the learned Magistrate. It is also contended that prosecu tion of applicant No. 6 who is Sub-Registrar is barred under Section 197, Cr. P. C. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties contended that this plea has been raised for the firsl time in revision. No finding on the basis of this plea could be given at this stage. However, trial Court will consider this plea at the time of final hearing.
(3.) WITH the above observations, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;