EMPEROR Vs. BHAWANI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against the order of a magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint filed by one Cheda Lal, against the applicant Bhawani Das. The offence alleged against the latter is abetment of the forgery of a sale- deed, dated the 27th of June, 1913, whereby Cheda Lal purported to convey certain property to one Het Ram. On the same date Het Ram executed a mortgage-deed, whereby he purported to borrow money from Bhawani Das on the security of this very property. Choda Lal s case is that he knew nothing about the sale-deed, and that his signature to the same was forged by one Babu Lal. The question was raised in two separate suits filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, one by Cheda Lal and one by Bhawani Das. The latter did not affirm the disputed sale-deed to be genuine, but on the contrary claimed damages from Babu Lal and Het Ram for having defrauded him, The Subordinate Judge held that the deed was a forgery and that Bhawani Das had been defrauded. He gave appropriate relief to the latter as well as to Cheda Lal, and he took proceedings under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Babu Lal and Het Ram. At the Sessions trial which followed Bhawani Das appeared as a witness for the prosecution. Babu Lal and Het Ram were convicted; but the Sessions Judge could not have been satisfied with the evidence given by Bhawani Das, for he issued a notice calling on the latter to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for abetment, on charges framed under Sections 467/471 read with Sections 109/114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the meantime, however, Cheda Lal had filed a complaint before a. magistrate charging Bhawani Das simply with abetment of forgery under Sections 463/109 of the Indian Penal Code. The magistrate has taken cognizance of this complaint, and his competence to do so is challenged by the present application.

(2.) The question depends on the construction to be put on certain words in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The essential words to be considered are: "No court shall take cognizance...of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 of the same (i.e., of the Indian Penal Code) when such offence has been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except with previous sanction or on the complaint, of such court, or of some other court to which such court is subordinate."

(3.) The case for the applicant is that offence alleged against him in the complaint of Cheda Lal is an offence of the kind described in Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code; that it was committed in respect of a document produced and given in evidence in the court of the Subordinate Judge in two suits to each of which Bhawani Das was a party, and that no sanction has been granted or complaint made by the Subordinate Judge or by the presiding officer of any court to which that of the Subordinate Judge is subordinate. As for the proceedings initiated by the Sessions Judge, they have not yet resulted in any definite order respecting the prosecution of Bhawani Das; moreover, the court of the Subordinate Judge is not subordinate to that of the Sessions Judge.