ORDER
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No. 66 of 1994 as confirmed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 559 of 1996 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the petitioner-appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The case of the prosecution according to the charge-sheet filed is that the petitioner herein offered surety in favour of the accused in Cr. No. 152 of 1992, registered under Sections 3 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, before the XTV Metropolitan Magistrate and in that context he produced his salary certificates. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate on suspicion about the genuineness of the salary certificates produced by the petitioner herein referred the same and reported the matter to the Inspector of Police. Pursuant to that, a case in Cr. No. 6 of 1993 was registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 463, 468 and 471, IPC. Subsequently the matter was transferred to Mir Chowk Police Station on the point of jurisdiction and after investigation and enquiry a charge-sheet was filed by the concerned police against the petitioner herein that while working as a Mechanical Cleaner in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad the petitioner prepared forged salary certificate by showing himself as the Record Assistant and produced the same before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
3. The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-8 on its behalf. Basing on the oral and the documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471, IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to ‘ suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, on each count. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 471, IPC, however, held that he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 468, IPC and accordingly sentenced him, reducing the period of one year to that of six months.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Khasim strenuously contended before this Court that in view of the prohibition contemplated under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance against the petitioner basing on a charge sheet filed by the concerned police in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to establish that these certificates were produced by the petitioner in connection with Cr. No. 152 of 1992 registered under Sections 3 and 14 of the Foreigners Act.
5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Insofar as the first submission that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance pursuant to the charge-sheet filed by the police in view of the prohibition contemplated under Section 195, Cr.P.C. is concerned, I am afraid it is not tenable. Section 195, Cr.P.C. contemplates prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the said provision for the purpose of this case.
Section 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.-
…(1)(b)(i) of any offence punishable
under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),
except on the complaint in writing of that Code, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
7. So, from the above provision of law it is clear that for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 471, 475 or 476 of IPC relating to documents the cognizance shall be taken only basing on the complaint given by the Court before which the said document is produced. In the instant case, the offence alleged against the petitioner is Section 468, IPC for which there is no prohibition under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
8. In identical facts, the Apex Court had an occasion to discuss as to. whether the embargo provided for in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is attracted or not. After discussing the entire case law on the subject in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar 1998 (1) Andh LD (Cri) 342 : 1998 Cri LJ 1565, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held :
The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal.
9. Accordingly, this contention is rejected.
10. Coming to the second submission that there is absolutely no evidence to establish that these documents were produced by the petitioner herein, I looked into the evidence of PW-2, the learned Magistrate who gave a report on suspicion. The learned Magistrate in unequivocal terms in his chief-examination as well as the cross-examination has stated that the petitioner herein alone produced these certificates and on perusal of the certificate having entertained some doubts he questioned the accused and later send the same for verification. In the light of the evidence by a Magistrate who was examined as PW-2, I do not think this submission holds good.
11. Accordingly this revision is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the offence took place as early as in the year 1993,1 feel it proper to reduce the sentence of six months to that of two months.