EMPEROR Vs. GULABCHAND RUPJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision on behalf of the accused against an order of the Resident First Class Magistrate, Nadiad, who rejected the accused's application to quash certain criminal proceedings pending in his Court under Secs.467 and 109, Indian Penal Code, against the accused.

(2.) The contention of the accused is that a document in respect, of which a charge of abetment of forgery is made against him in those proceedings was produced before the Extra First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat in the Civil Suit No. 529 of 1922, that any prosecution against him in respect of such a document can be instituted only on a written complaint of the Subordinate Judge and admittedly as there is no written complaint the present proceedings are irregular and should be quashed.

(3.) It appears that the accused was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 529 of 1922. The plaintiff in that suit had obtained a decree against the accused and had filed a darkhast in the Extra First Class Subordinate Judge's Court for execution of that decree. In answer to that darkhast the defendant had produced the document in question and had handed up the same to the Subordinate Judge. That document purported to show that the decree had been compromised for a payment of Rs. 1,500. The Subordinate Judge did not take the document on the file on the ground that the date it bore showed that it was out of time for the purpose of evidencing any compromise of the decree. In doing so the learned Subordinate Judge failed to observe the provisions of Order XIII, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, which lays down:- Where a document relied on as evidence by either party is considered by the Court to be inadmissible in evidence, there shall be endorsed thereon the particulars mentioned .