BKARUNAKAR HEGDE Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 474 and 471 of the I. P. C. He has been committed to take his trial before the Sessions Judge of South Kanara. In the present revision petition, the order committing the petitioner to take his trial before the Court of Session, has been attacked on the ground that the said order is illegal and is in contravention of the mandatory provisions of law and the prayer is for the quashing of the order of commitment. Amongst other sections, this petition purports to be also under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The facts as can be gathered from the order of commitment, are as follows : The present petitioner had been in possession, on 16-2-1960 of a forged 'Soda Chit' or a relinquishment deed in respect of a land bearing Survey No. 30-46-A which was situated at Kulinge locality of Havanje village. The allegation also was that on the same date, viz., 16-2-1960, the petitioner had dishonestly used as genuine that 'Soda Chit', knowing or having reason to believe at the time it was used, that it was a forged document. The prosecution case was that the accused had thereby committed offences under Sections 474 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. This 'Soda Chit' was dated 9-2-1959 and purported to have been executed by one Anantha Naika. From the facts stated in the order of commitment, it would also appear that the prosecution allegations were to the effect that on 9-2-1959 the petitioner had produced an old man before the Tahsildar, representing that the old man was the tenant Anantha Naika who wanted to execute this release deed in respect of the leased land. According to the case of the prosecution, the real tenant Anantha Naika had not at all executed this 'Soda Chit' or relinquishment deed. It is on these allegations, the accused was committed by the learned Magistrate (on a perusal of the relevant papers), to take his trial before the Court of Session, for the alleged offences under Sections 474 and 471 of the I. P. C.

(3.) The First ground which has been urged by Sri B. V. Deshpande on behalf of the petitioner is, that in the absence of a complaint by the Court of Tahsildar, under Section 476 of the Cri. P. C., the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case against the petitioner, merely on a charge sheet filed by the police. It is contended that in the present case, there has been a contravention of the mandatory provisions of Sections 476 and 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the complaint by the Tahsildar was a condition precedent for the Magistrate taking cognizance of the alleged offences. This is the only ground which has been mentioned in the revision petition. But, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, with the leave of the Court, urged one more contention. That contention was to the effect that even if the Tahsildar was not a Court, nevertheless, the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be attracted to the present case, on the ground that the misrepresentation alleged to have been made by the accused before the Tahsildar in regard to that old man being no other than the tenant Anantha Naika, would be an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. It was argued that if the facts alleged against the petitioner disclose an offence which would be really one punishable under Section 182 of the I. P. C., then even though the prosecution purports to be only for offences under Sections 474 and 471 of the I. P. C. it cannot be permitted unless there was a complaint by the public servant concerned, namely, Tahsildar, for the offence under Section 182 of the I. P. C., as required under Section 195 (1) (a) of the Cri. P. C. We will now proceed to consider the merits of these contentions.