THAMMANENI DIBBA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Section 465 and Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 468 read with section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code and set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 468 read with Section 471 of Indian Penal Code. It confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code but the sentence was modified from oneyear rigorous imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In this revision, the judgment of the appellate Court is questioned.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, when he was a Sarpanch, starting laying roads without there being resolution to that effect. O.S.No. 35 of 1981 was filed by the complainant in the case and I.A.No. 121 of 1981 was also filed for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from proceeding with the work. The petitioner produced the attendance book, call book and resolution book into the Court It is alleged that the complainant found his signatures forged in the call book which was produced in the Court in the above suit On these allegations the complaint was filed under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was tried for the above offence and was convicted as stated above. The short question that falls for consideration in this revision case is whether the case of the prosecution is vitiated since there was no complaint by theCourtaga inst the petitioneras required under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code and on this ground the conviction can be set aside. Sub-section 1 (b) (ii)ofSection 195 of Criminal Procedure Code clearly states that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 471,475 or 476 of Indian Penal Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of adocumentproducedorgiven in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. In this case, the facts disclose that the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence with respect to the call book and the attendance register which has been filed by the petitioner in the. Court in O.S.No. 35 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Markapur and on these allegations the petitioner was tried and convicted No complaint was given by the Court for prosecuting the petitioner. The Cognizance of the case, should therefore be held as wrongly taken b)' the Court in violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The trial was, therefore, without jurisdiction and ab initio void. The conviction, therefore, cannot be maintained.

(3.) The decision in Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab (1) AIR 1962 SC1206 is an authority to the proposition that the trial without complaint under Section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code for an offence with reference to two documents filed before the Court is void. It is also significant that in the case cited above for the first time, the question, whether complaint in writing under Section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code had been presented or not was raised before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had allowed the objection and set aside the conviction. In this case also this question has been raised for the first time before me in this Revision. Since the matter goes to the root of the matter and the trial was vitiated in the absence of the complaint, as required under Section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code.asno cognizance could be taken by the Court, I allow the objection to be raised and argued.