KANTILAL KHIMCHAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted under secs. 380 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the accused who was a plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 304 of 1960 pending in the Court of Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Surat. Defendant No. 1 produced a list EX. 28 along with Ex. 28/1 a receipt purporting to have been passed by the accused. Before the receipt vas actually exhibited it was the prosecution case that the plaintiff took it from the record of the Court and inserted in its place Ex. 18 a forged document which is alleged to have been forged by him adding some words to the words in the original document. According to the prosecution both Exs. 28/1 and Ex. 18 the forged receipt were signed by the accused. On these facts the accused was prosecuted under secs 380 467 and 471 I.P. Code and has been convicted by the trial Court as well as by the Sessions Court in appeal

(2.) Now in revision it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case there has not been any complaint by the Court and such a trial requires a complaint by Court in view of the provisions of sec. 195(1)(c) Cri. Pro. Code. This section reads as follows:-

(3.) He relies on re Gopal Sidheshvar 9 Bombay Law Reporter 735 (6 Cri. L J. 78) for his contention that the word produced in the above section is not the same thing as giving in evidence and that a document produced in Court is one which is produced for the purpose of being tendered in evidence or for some other purpose The learned Judges of the Bombay High Court therein held as under: