1. The appellant Bajirao and his. father Yeshwantrao were prosecuted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Kishan on the night of the 28th February 1951. at Linga, Chhindwara tahsil; and during the trial charges under Sections 468 and 474 'ibid' were added against the appellant. Yeshwantrao and he were both acquitted under Section 302, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo two terms, each of 4 years rigorous imprisonment, and to pay two fines, each of Rs. 1,000/-, under Sections 468 and 474. In appeal, I held that the addition of the charges during the trial might have been prejudicial to the appellant and quashed the convictions and sentences. The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, thereafter moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, to file a complaint against the appellant under sections 468 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. The objections raised by the appellant were overruled and the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, directed a complaint to be filed against him. under those sections in a competent Court. The appellant has now come up in appeal against that order.
2. The case against him was, briefly stated, to the effect that the appellant being covetous of Kishan's valuable field, forged with the help of others a sale deed (articles K-1 to K-4), dated. the 25th December 1950, purporting to have been executed by Kishan, had it registered and retained it. Kishan heard a rumour of this and made inquiries from the appellant who assured him that there was no truth in the rumour. The appellant then being apprehensive that the matter would eventually come to light killed Kishan and threw his body into a river.
3. The appellant contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that (1) he had no jurisdiction to make a complaint under Sections. 468 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code as the provisions of Sections 195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply to the case and (ii) he should not file the complaint as it was not expedient and desirable to prosecute the appellant. These contentions were repelled by the learned. Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds that the words and figures 'of any offence described. in Section. 463' in Section 195 (1) (c) refer to all offences committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a trial and that the prosecution was expedient and desirable in the interests of the deceased Kishan's minor sons who might be put to serious loss if the appellant hereinafter used the document in question in support of his claim to the field. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also pointed out that, even if he had no jurisdiction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he was entitled to file a complaint, as a criminal Court can be moved by any person except in respect of the offences referred to in Sections 198 and 199 'ibid'.
4. In - 'Sanmukhsingh v. The King' AIR 1950 PC 31 (A), their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that Section 195 (D (O of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers only to a document alleged to be forged and not to a copy of it; and that where the document in respect of which a charge of forgery had been laid against the accused had not itself been produced or given in evidence in certain proceedings but on the contrary a copy of it had been produced, 'the absence of complaint under Section 195 (1) (c) cannot operate as a bar to the trial of the accused. In a recent case, viz., - 'Rudrappa v. Chigaterappa' AIR 1951 Mys 117 (B), this decision was quoted with approval and it was pointed out that where only a copy of the alleged forged document is produced in Court and a decree is passed by consent with the result that the Court was not in a position to give any decision thereon, a prosecution under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the document would not be bad for want of sanction under Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A. similar view was taken in - 'Emperor v. Mustafa Ali Khan' 2 Cri LJ 653 (O.
5. As certified copies of the sale deed and not the original were filed in the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the absence of a complaint under Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not operate as a bar to the trial of the appellant Bajirao under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code; and a complaint under the aforesaid clause was not necessary in respect of the alleged offence under Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code; but even if it could -be held that the offence which is punishable under that section is one which is described in Section 463 'ibid', the absence of a complaint in respect of it would not operate as a bar to the trial of the appellant Bajirao for the reason given above, namely, that the original sale deed had not been filed in the murder.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the 7th paragraph of his order has also considered the position from another angle, and I am in agreement with his views therein. It follows, therefore, that his Court was competent to file a complaint against the appellant under Sections 468 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge too has given cogent reasons for his opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offences under those sections. The deceased Kishan's sons are minors; and if at a later date the appellant endeavoured with the aid of the sale deed to put forward a claim to the valuable field in question, they would find it difficult to establish that it was a forged document.
7. The application is dismissed.