LAWS(KER)-2016-6-269

G JABBAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On June 02, 2016
G Jabbal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein impugns the legality, correctness, propriety of the order dated 1.2.2006 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Varkala, on Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.323/2006 in Calendar Case, C.C.No.1050/2003, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner in that Criminal Miscellaneous Petition to discharge him from that case has been rejected by the court below. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences under Secs.465, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C., in the aforestated Calendar Case, C.C.No.1050/2003, on the file of the court below. The main allegation raised against the petitioner is that he had forged the signature of the defacto complainant in Crime No.356/1989 of Varkala Police Station, and has thus forged the first information statement in that crime. It is not necessary to go into the details of the case, in which the petitioner has been implicated or into the details the crime, in which the signature of the defacto complainant/first informant was alleged to have been forged by the petitioner. The petitioner has raised only two contentions before the court below in support of his prayer to discharge him in the case.

(2.) The first contention is that the taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate in the instant case is in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Sec.195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the said provision has mandated that no court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Secs.463 or punishable under Secs.471, 475 or 476 of the I.P.C., when such offences alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, etc, except on the complaint in writing by that court or by such officer of the court as that court may authorise in writing in that behalf, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate.

(3.) The second contention is that even as per the allegations in the crime registered against the petitioner, the case of the prosecution is that the very act of preparation of the allegedly forged FI statement by the petitioner was in discharge of his official capacity as the Sub Inspector of Police, who had to exercise his powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter of taking action in relation to such first information statement. Accordingly, it is contended by the petitioner that the learned Magistrate could have validly taken cognizance of the offences in the instant case relating to alleged forgery of the first information statement in another crime, which was investigated by the petitioner only if prior sanction as envisaged in Sec.197(2) read with Sec.197(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been obtained and that admittedly in the instant case, no such sanction has been obtained for prosecuting the petitioner and hence taking of cognizance by the court below is absolutely illegal and ultra vires. Both these contentions have been overruled by the court below.