1. The facts of this case have one peculiarity about them. Briefly stated they are as follows: There was a lambardari case pending in appeal in the Court of the Collector of Firrukhabad. The present applicant Ram Sahai had been appointed by a Subordinate Court as lambardar and the opposite party had appealed against the order. The opposite party pleaded that Ram Sahai was in debt that his estate was burdened and that he should not be appointed. He pleaded that he had paid up a considerable part of the debt and in order to establish it he produced a receipt for Rs. 450, dated the 20th of December 1911 and bearing on it a one anna postage stamp which bore the effigy of King George V. The Collector came to the conclusion that this receipt was not genuine, on the ground that the stamp which was affixed to it was not obtainable in the district on the 20th of December 1911. Ram Sahai explained that the stamp had been affixed to the receipt a year after the execution of the document itself. The Collector came to the conclusion that Ram Sahai should not be appointed and he passed orders accordingly on the 5th of September 1917. Under his order deciding the appeal he wrote the following order: 'I propose to make further enquiry into the matter of the receipt as District Magistrate. I order that Kashi Ram, Inderjit and Tansukh be summoned to my Court on September 25th and direct that Ram Sahai execute a bond in Rs. 100 for his appearance on that date.' A separate record was commenced in the forefront of which there is a vernacular translation of this order, in which it is distinctly set out that Mr. Alexander in his capacity as District Magistrate was taking up this matter. He passed orders on the 11th of October as follows: 'Ram Sahai appears to be guilty of an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and 1 send this record to Mr. Mahadeo Prasad for necessary action together with Ram Sahai.' It is against this order that the present application in revision has been filed.
2. Now it is quite clear under Section 195, Clause 1(c), of the Criminal Procedure Code that no Court could take cognizance of the offence under Section 471 of the Penal Code except with the previous sanction or on complaint of the Collector of Farrukhabad. The District Magistrate of Farrukhabad qua District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, because the offence had been committed by a party to a proceeding in the Revenue Court of the Collector in respect of the document which was given in evidence in the course of the appeal. Mr. Alexander in his capacity as Collector and Presiding Officer of the Revenue Court of appeal has made no complaint and has given no sanction. Therefore, no Criminal Court could take cognizance of the offence in the present case. The order of the District Magistrate in the present case is ultra vires and mast be set aside. I would point out that if the Collector of the District had taken action under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code and had made a complaint, then this Court would have had no jurisdiction to interfere with his order. At first I was under the impression that Mr. Alexander had acted in his capacity as the Presiding Officer of a Revenue Court of Appeal, but I am faced with the clear statement in his order that he is acting in his capacity as a District Magistrate and not as a Collector. I, therefore, allow this application. I set aside the order of the District Magistrate. It Will be open to the Collector of the District to take any action which he may deem necessary in the matter according to law.