SHEO SHANKER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri V. C. Katiyar, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri R. B. Sahi and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 2 Mahabali filed the complaint before Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur raising that he was co-sharer with accused Sheo Shanker, Suresh Chandra and two others, namely, Bihari and Ram Shanker. Sheo Shanker and Suresh Chandra wanted the complainant to give land of his share to them. The complainant did not agree whereupon accused Sheo Shanker and Suresh Chandra conspired with the Jia Lal accused and after impersonating Jia Lal as Mahabali got the sale-deed dated 3.12.81 executed in the name of Ram Shanker and Bihari. Accused Vedshi Lal Verma and Jagat Narain, Lekhpal had also colluded and conspired in getting forged sale-deed executed and registered. Sheo Nath and Ram Asrey accused had also identified Jia Lal as Mahabali at the time of the execution of sale-deed. It was also alleged that the accused person approached Bihari son of Dwarika co-sharer in the said khata for signing an application for mutation. Bihari did not sign the said application and informed about the execution of forged sale-deed to the complainant. On these allegations, it was prayed that the accused person may be tried and convicted for offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 120B and 420, I.P.C. The complainant examined himself under Section 203, I.P.C. and Behari son of Dwarika under Section 202, I.P.C. and also moved an application for summoning the original document from accused Sheo Shanker and Suresh Chandra and also the record of the office of Sub-Registrar so that the thumb impression on the sale-deed may be compared with the thumb impression of the complainant.

(3.) THE revision preferred against the judgment and order of the trial court was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 29.4.83 holding that bar under Section 195 (1) (b), Cr. P.C. was applicable to the cases where the offence is said to have been committed by the parties to the proceedings after such party had become party in such proceedings and not before. Learned Sessions Judge held that in the present case offences under Sections 465, 467, 120B and 420, I.P.C. were undisputedly alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties prior to their having become party to the proceedings or prior to the said document having been produced or tendered in evidence in the proceedings in any court. THE learned Sessions Judge relied upon the cases of Raghunath v. State, AIR 1973 SC 1100 and Madan Lai v. State of Rqjasthan, AIR 1974 SC 299. Learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Magistrate and remanded the case for proceeding in accordance with law. It is this judgment and order which is being challenged in this revision. I