LAWS(SC)-1973-11-39

MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On November 21, 1973
MOHAN LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A private complaint was filed by one Rameshwarlal son of Laduram against the appellants under Sections 464, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. The appellants took a preliminary objection that the court was incompetent to take cognizance of the offences by reason of the provisions contained in S. 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The objection was rejected by the learned Magistrate, the Sessions Court refused to make a reference to the High Court and the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.

(2.) The complainant Rameshwarlal alleges that the appellants forged the will of one Kharturam, produced it before the Patwari and used it as a piece of evidence in support of their title to a land. It is not quite clear from the complaint, but the parties seem to have proceeded on the basis that the Tehsildar directed that entries be made in the Record of Rights in the names of the appellants on the strength of the will.

(3.) It is difficult on these facts to invoke the application of S. 195 (1) (c), Criminal Procedure Code. It provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under S. 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have 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 on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. In Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1971) Suppl. SCR 834 , it was held by this court that in order to attract Section 195 (1) (c), the offence should be alleged to have been committed by the party to the proceeding in his character as such party, i.e. after having become a party to the proceeding. This decision was recently followed in Raghunath v. State of U. P. AIR 1973 SC 1100.