RANBIR SINGH JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Kumaun. Hit has recommended that the proceedings against the accused Ranbir Singh Jain in so far as they relate to the offence under Section 466 I.P.C. be quashed as there is no proper complaint as required under Section 195(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of this charge.

(2.) IT appears that on the 3rd July 1950 the accused had made an application to the Munsarim of the District Judge, Kumaun, for obtaining copies of certain documents which were filed in Civil Suit No. 47 of 1945 which had been instituted on the 5th May, 1945 and decided later on. It was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that some time after the application for copies had been made the accused made some alteration in the application and thereby committed notice of the then District Judge of Kumaun and he sent a D.O. letter to the Superintendent of Police, Naini Tal, requesting him to depute some police officer to investigate into the matter. The matter was investigated by a Sub -Inspector of police who had been deputed by Superintendent of Police and the charge sheet was submitted by the police under Sections 448, and 466 I.P.C. against the accused.

(3.) THE question which arose before the learned Sessions Judge was whether there was any proceeding in the court in which the offence under Section 466 I.P.C. was said to have been committed by the accused. In deciding this point he referred to the General Rules (Civil) framed by the Allahabad High Court with regard to the procedure which has to be observed in obtaining copies of certain documents. He has referred to Rules 3, 15 and 20, as also Rules 23, 25 and 26 of Chapter X of the General Rules (Civil) and also to Form No. 28 in which application for copies, has to be made. From an examination of these Rules it appears that the application for copies has to be made to a court though for the sake of convenience it is received by the Munsarim of that court or by any other official especially deputed by the court for that purpose. He has also referred to a decision of the Lahore High Court Fakir Singh v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1928 Lah.759. It was held in this case that proceedings arising out of an application to obtain a copy must be deemed to be pending before that court and that it is open to the Court to delegate its functions to somebody else and the official to whom such functions are delegated really exercises them on behalf of the Court and acts as its ministerial officer. It was also held that there could be no prosecution in respect of forgery committed in such proceeding without a proper complaint by the court before whom such proceeding was pending. In view of this decision there is no doubt that the words 'proceeding in any court' contemplated in Section 195(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure include a proceeding which arises out of an application made for obtaining copies of certain documents, and are not necessarily confined to judicial proceedings.