GANGA RAM PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and the learned AGA and perused the record.

(2.) IT appears that the applicant moved an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") before the II-Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad vide Misc. Case No. 367 of 2009 (Ganga Ram Pandey v Vijay Kumar Shukla). The learned Magistrate rejected the application on 03.07.2009 on the ground that the forged documents were produced in the High Court, therefore, only the High Court had power to take cognizance. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the Magistrate's order vide his order dated 25.07.2009 in Criminal Revision No. 200 of 2009 relying on the decision of K. Vengadachalam v KC Palanisamy & others [2005 U.P.Cr. R. Page 500 S.C.) and held that the learned Magistrate had passed a justified order.

(3.) SECTION 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Code has specifically provided that any offence described under section 463 or punishable under sections 471, 475 or 476 IPC or any criminal conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or abetment of, any such offence is cognizable only on the complaint in writing of the concerned court or on the complaint of such officer of the court as may be authorized by the court in writing in this behalf or on the complaint of such other court to which the court concerned is subordinate, if such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. Therefore, section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not attracted in regard to a document alleged have been forged prior to its filing in the court. Such provision is attracted when any forgery is committed after filing of the document in the court in a judicial proceeding.