Bahadur vs Chandra Bhushan & Anr.

Krishna Kumar, J.

This revision has been filed against the order dated 151190 whereby the revision was allowed and coaccused was discharged. The said order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the order of the Magistrate dated 2790. Vide order dated 2790 the learned Magistrate rejected the application of the coaccused for discharging them. The accused had raised objection that cognizance could not be taken by the learned Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended if that the documents was not in the custody of the Court and some forgery was committed, the bar of the Section 195 (i) was not applicable. Learned Counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon 1998 U.P. Criminal Ruling page 258, wherein it is held that the bar of Section 195 (i) was not applicable to a case where forgery of document was committed before it was produced before the Court. In the above case law after discussing so many cases it has been held that the bar contained in Section 195 (i)(b)(ii) CrPC is not applicable to a case where forgery of documents was committed before the documents was produced in the Court. The same view has been upheld m 1998 U.P. Criminal Ruling page 81. In this case the alleged forgery was made outside the Court. The learned lower Court has also held that before Consolidation Officer, the validity of the sale deed was admitted, before the learned Magistrate, the allegation was that a sale deed was forged. Even if the document was forged it was forged prior to filing in the Court and therefore, the proceedings were not barred by Section 195 (i)(b)(ii) CrPC. It may further be mentioned that such point was not raised before the learned lower Court, it was raised at the stage of revision. Learned Sessions Judge committed illegality in holding that bar is applicable. Considering the fact, the revision is allowed, order dated 15111990 is set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case.

Revision allowed.