1. This is an application for revision from an order of the. District Magistrate of Cawnpore, dated the 7th of April 1923. The point urged against it is that this order was passed without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.
2. It is not necessary to go into the previous history of the litigation, and it is sufficient to say that while a criminal case was pending before Mr. Christie, having been brought by Gauri Charan Misir against Shanker Prasad, an agreement was signed by Sarju Prasad (the present applicant) undertaking to pay Rs. 4,000 to the complainant in case the criminal case was withdrawn. This agreement was filed by Gauri Charan Misir.
3. Later on it was discovered that one word 'amanat' in the document had been cut out and it purports to have been initialled. The offence being a non-compoundable one there was of coiirse no compromise but ultimately the accused was acquitted.
4. In a separate enquiry Mr. Christie recorded some evidence, and then in a long report, dated the 18th of March 1923, submitted the facts of the case to the District Magistrate. He begins his report by referring to the verbal report which he had made to that officer previously, and after setting forth all the facts in detail, expressed his opinion that he was certain that the alteration was made after the document was filed in Court, and that Sarju Prasad had not only committed perjury, but had committed an offence punishable under Section 477 of the Indian Penal Code. He however made no order under Section 476 directing the prosecution of Sarju Prasad.
5. On receipt of this report the District Magistrate passed the order which is questioned in this revision. Under this order he directed the prosecution of Sarju Prasad on two alternative charges under Section 193 and directed that the case should go to Khan Bahadur Maulvi Muhammad Abdul Hamid Khan for disposal.
6. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that the report of Mr. Christie does not amount to an order under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction whatsoever to pass any such order. On this hypothesis it is urged that the applicant cannot be prosecuted.
7. There can be no doubt that the report of Mr. Christie cannot, in any sense, be treated as an order under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but at the same time inasmuch as it gives all the facts of the case and mentions that in the opinion of Mr. Christie, Sarju Prasad had been guilty of offences under Sections 193 and 477, and inasmuch as these facts were submitted to the District Magistrate, who had jurisdiction to take cognizance of such offences, it is clear that the report falls within the definition of 'complaint' as given in Section 4 (h). In this view of the matter the District Magistrate had before him a complaint made by Mr. Christie. Under Section 190 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he had power to take cognizance of these offences, and under Section 192 (1) he could transfer the case for trial to another Magistrate subordinate to him. Whatever the intention of the District Magistrate might have been in substance, his order amounts to taking cognizance of the two offences and the sending of the case to a Magistrate appointed by him to try if This order, therefore, cannot be said to have been passed without any jurisdiction. So long as there is either the previous sanction or complaint of the Court in or in relation to, any proceedings in which Court the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, has been committed, the provisions of Section 195 (1) (h) of the Coda of Criminal Procedure are fully complied with.
8. The first alleged offence is that Sarju Prasad in his statement, dated the 23rd of October 1922, before Mr. Christie, had stated that the word 'amanat,' had been erased by him before the document was put in Court. If this statement is proved to be false, there can be no doubt that the applicant would be guilty of an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, The second alleged false statement is that he has made a false entry in the said document with a view to its appearing in a judicial proceeding and caused an erroneous opinion to be formed by the Magistrate in his judicial proceeding, that is has fabricated false evidence. It will be for the Trying Magistrate to see whether, even if the first charge is proved, it is sufficiently established, that the applicant did make the false entry in the document with a view to its appearing, in a judicial proceeding. It is to be noted that he was no party to the proceedings in which this document was filed and it may be that some other person interested was responsible for the alteration.
9. In conclusion I may say that the case is very much similar to the case, reported in Emperor v. Sundar Sarup 26 A. 514; A.W.N. (1994) 90 : 1 Cr. L.J. 335.
10. In the view which I have expressed this application must be dismissed. It is accordingly rejected.