WADHU MAL AGNANI Vs. RULIA RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed by Wadhu Mal Agnani President of the Tribune Employees Union (Registered) is directed against the order of learned. Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner against the order of Additional District Magistrate, Ambala.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that Rulia Ram Sharma, General Manager of the Tribune, filed a complaint on behalf of the trustees of that paper against the petitioner and Dharam Vir Malik under Sections 120-B, 465, 466 and 471, Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that the petitioner and Dharam Vir Malik had produced a forged document purporting to be an authority, a letter of the workmen before the Conciliation Officer, Chandigarh, in respect of an alleged dispute between the management of that Paper and some of its employees. The Additional District Magistrate, Ambala, in whose Court that complaint was filed summoned Agnani and Malik under Sections 466, 471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. On 29-3-1963 the accused made an application for quashing the proceedings against them and for their discharge on the ground that the sanction of the local Government for the prosecution of the accused for the offence under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code had not been obtained under Section 196-A, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The other objection taken on behalf of the accused was that a complaint by the Conciliation Officer for proceeding against them under Sections 466 and 471. Indian Penal Code, was necessary, as the document in question was stated to have been produced before that officer by the accused. The learned Additional District Magistrate upheld the first contention and directed that allegations about criminal conspiracy which were subject-matter of the offence under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, should be ignored and that the complainant be not allowed to lead evidence on that score. He, however, rejected the other contention of the accused about the necessity of a complaint by Conciliation Officer because in his view the Conciliation Officer was not a Court as mentioned in Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code. The petitioner then filed a revision petition against the order of the Additional District Magistrate to the Court of Session, Ambala, and it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code, because the Conciliation Officer was a Court and the complaint had not been filed by him. This contention was repelled by the learned Sessions Judge and he, accordingly, dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner.

(3.) CLAUSE (c) of Section 195 (1) of the Code reads as under: 195 (1) (c):