SESSIONS JUDGE OF CUDDAPAH Vs. KONDETI OBALESU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Sessions Judge ought to have followed the law clearly laid down by this Court in John Martin Sequeira v. Luja Bal (1901) I.L.R. 25 M. 671 that where a person " was not a party to the proceedings in the Court in the case in which the alleged forged document was produced, no sanction for his prosecution was required." Assuming that Bombay High Court took a different view in 6 Indian Cases 529 (a report which is not available to me) the Sessions Judge was bound by the decision of this Court in John Martin Sequeira v. Luja Bal (1901) I.L.R. 25 M. 671. As regards the difference in language between Section 469 of the old Criminal Procedure Code of 1872 and Section 195 of the present Code, I see no essential difference in meaning and intent. The old section is worded thus " A complaint of an offence relating to documents described in Sections 463, 471, 475 or 476 of the Indian Penal Code, when the document has been given in evidence in any proceedings in any Civil or Criminal Court, shall not be entertained against a party to such proceedings except with the sanction etc." The new Section 195(c) is "No Court shall take cognisance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 471, 475, or 476 of the same Code, when such offence has been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding except with the previous sanction etc.

(2.) I think that both sections contemplate the necessity of sanctior only in case the offence which the Criminal Court is asked to entertain has been committed by a party to the proceeding in the other Court.

(3.) This is also the view taken in Debi Lal v. Dhajadarin Gashai (1911) 15 C.W.N. 565 which refers with approval to John Martin Sequiera v. Luja Bal (1901) I.L.R. 25 M. 671. I therefore do not accept the reference and direct the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial of the prisoners committed to his Court.