SHYAM LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against an order of the Sessions Judge exercising his powers under Section 437, Cr. P. C. He directed that accused Shyam Lai be committed for trial to the court of Session under Sections 467 read with Sections 109 and 468 read with Section 109, I. P. C. The learned Magistrate iutd discharged Shyam Lai. That order has been set aside and the Magistrate has been directed to take accused Shyam Lai Into custody and commit him for trial.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that an application had been moved by one Smt Ratna under Section 134 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for obtaining sanad in respect of certain plots of land. She claimed to lie a co-sharer along with one Tej Singh. The application also purported to show consent of Tej Singh regarding the deposit of money by Smt. Ratna for obtaining the Sanad. Tej Singh, however, denied that the thumb impression was his. This thumb impression is said to have been identified by accused Shyam Lai.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has contended that as the application by Smt. Ratna was moved in the court and the identification had been done by the applicant Shyam Lai in the court in a proceeding, the offence will be deemed to have been committed by a party to the proceeding in the court, within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that he could not be deemed to be a party to the proceeding simply because he had identified the thumb impression,