1. The facts out of which this application arises so far as they are necessary for the determination of the point which we have to consider can be very briefly stated.
2. One Muhammad Hashim has been convicted, of the offence of forging a sale-deed and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. The principal witness against Muhammad Hashim and the complainant in the case was one Mare Lal. The same Mare Lal has now instituted a complaint against Ghansham Singh for abetment of the forgery of which Muhammad Hashim. was convicted. Ghansham Singh took an early opportunity after he appeared in Court of objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court which was holding the inquiry and said that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the complaint without the sanction of the Additional Sessions Judge in whose Court Muhammad Hashim was tried and in whose Court at that trial the forged sale-deed was produced. It is admitted on both sides that neither Muhammad Hashim nor Ghansham Singh were parties to any proceeding in any Court in respect of this sale-deed. That being so, there was no need of sanction to be given by the Additional Sessions Judge. The offence or offences is which Section 195, Clause (1) Sub-clause (c) read with. Clause (3) requires that sanction should be given by a Court with respect to documents produced in Court must be offences committed by parties to the proceeding whether the offence be one of the substantial offences described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 of the Indian Penal Code or only amounts to abetment of any such offences. We are satisfied that this is the right construction to put upon the words used in Section 195(1)(c) and (3). The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on this point was a correct view. We see no cause to interfere and direct that the record be returned.