DOONGAR MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOONGAR Mal Kothari has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by way of an application Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in the court of the Sessions Judge, Balotra, Under Section 466, IPC. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that upon coming into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure the Sessions Judge is precluded from taking cognizance of any offence of forgery denned in Section 463, or punishable under Sections 471 or 475 or 476, IPC except on the complaint in writing of the court in a proceeding of which the offence has been committed in respect of the document produced or given in evidence.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. may be briefly stated as follows. One Ratti Ram son of Koja Ram resident of Jasol filed an application Under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in he court of the Debt Relief Court (Civil Judge), Balotra, on 21st October, 1971, for determination of his debts. In that application 6 persons, namely, Narsingh Das, Ulhas Mal, Nath Mal, Bheru Mal, Kesari Mil and Megh Raj were mentioned as creditors of Ratti Ram Doongar Mal petitioner was the counsel engaged by Ratti Ram in that case before the Debt Relief Court. The application Under Section 6 of the Act along with the stay application was registered by the Debt Relief Court on 15th January, 1962, It was alleged that during the period between 3rd January and 15 January 1962, the petitioner added the name of Sanwat Raj, non -petitioner, to the array of creditors both in the application Under Section 6 of the Act and also in the stay application. As Shri Sanwat Raj was not mentioned as a creditor in the original application Under Section 6 of the Act and as his name was later on written in the application, he requested the Debt Relief Court, by way of an application in writing, to launch prosecution against Doongar Mal petitioner having committed forgery and, later on, filed another application Under Section 478/208, old Cr.P.C. for registration of a criminal case against the petitioner Under Section 466, IPC. Thereafter, proceedings were taken against the petitioner under the Legal Practitioners Act and the Bar Council of Rajasthan found him quality of professional misconduct and reprimanded him for the same under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Sanwat Raj, non petitioner, preferred an appeal to the Bar Council of India against the order of the Bar Council of Rajasthan, but his appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 1st May, 1966. Thereafter, Sanwat Raj, non -patitioner No. 2, moved another application in the Debt Relief Court for inquiry into his previous application Under Section 476, old Cr.P.C. The Debt Relief Court started proceedings Under Section 476, old Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and passed an order on 23rd August, 1968, that there were m compelling reasons to pursue the matter further in a criminal court. Aggrieved by this order of the Debt Relief Court, Sanwat Raj, non petitioner No. 2, preferred an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge, Balotra. The Sessions Judge, Balotra, dismissed the appeal against Doongar Mai and sent the case back to the learned Civil Judge, Balotra, to take necessary legal stops in accordance with law on the application of Sanwat Raj against Raid Ram. After the decision of the appeal, Sanwat Raj non -petitioner No. 2, filed a complaint against the petitioner on 22nd July, 1970, in the court of the Munsiff Magistrate. Balorta, Under Section 466. IPC because the Sessions Judge, which dismissing the appeal observed that Sanwat Raj was fee to take legal steps under the law as Section 195, old Cr.P.C. was not bar to the filing of a complaint against any person other than a patty to the proceedings in a court. The learned Magistrate enquired into the complaint and issued process against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate and raised a preliminary objection that no cognizance of an offence Under Section 466, IPC can be taken against him by the court in the complaint of Sanwat Raj in view of the express bar created by Section 195, Cr.P.C. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was over ruled by the learned Magistrate, vide his order dated 21st September, 1973. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a revision -petition in the court of the Sessions Judge, Balotra, but his revision -petition was dismissed The learned Magistrate, thereafter, committed the petitioner to the court of the Sessions Judge, Balotra, for trial Under Section 466, IPC Later on, the Sessions Judge proceeded to try the petitioner for the aforesaid offence Hence, the petitioner has moved this Court Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sasnwat Raj, on the other hand, contended that the offence of forgery was committed by the petitioner in respect of a document, i.e., application filed by Ratti Ram for determination of his debt in the Debt Relief Court prior to the coming into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure and so there is no bar in taking cognizance there of by the Sessions Judge in the absence of a complaint in writing by the Debt Relief Court, although Sub -clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Section 195(1) new Criminal Procedure Code does not refer to the, offence having been committed by a party to the proceeding. In support of their above proposition learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sanwat Raj non -petitioner, No. 2, relied upon an authority of the East Punjab High Court Ram Singh v. The Crown A.I.R. E. Punj. 25 (6), wherein the following observations were, made by Achhru Ram, J.: It is well settled that no one has any vested right, in any procedural rule and that, therefore, any change in the procedural law has a retrospective effect in the sense of being applicable even to judicial proceedings initiated before the change, provided of course this can be done without affecting any substantive rights acquired by any of the parries to the proceedings before the change. It is, however, equally well -settled that the validity or operation of any order validly pissed or any act validly done by judicial tribunal under the procedural, law for the time being in force cannot be affected by any subsequent change in the said law. It, therefore, follows that the action taken by the Magistrate, under the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 3 on 30th September, 1948, in making over the case to the Sessions Court can not be, affected by the subsequent cancellation of the notification Under Section 2(b), in respect of Ludhiana District and the consequent change of procedure applicable to the trial of cases like the present in, the said district, By reason of that action the learned Sessions Judge was properly and validly seized of the case on the day the Provincial Government chose to make an order for the cancellation of the notification and he continued to be seized of that case even after, the said Government had cancelled the notification. The Public Prosecutor also relied upon Hari Ram Onkar v. Mst. Radha A.I.R. 1943 Nag. 327.