1. The petitioners seek to revise the order of the District judge, Salem, under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, complaining against them for abetting a forgery. The learned Judge has overlooked Govinda Aiyar v. Rex I.L.R. (1919) 42 M. 540 : 36 M.L.J. 448 which confines Section 476 to the exact offences referred to in Section 195, so that offences in Section 195(1)(c) must be offences 'alleged to have been committed by a party'. The amendment of these sections in 1923 has not affected the reasoning adopted by the Full Bench, and so far as this province is concerned that ruling constitutes the binding law. Anybody can complain against an abettor of the offences in Section 195(1)(c) and there is no question of the Court itself complaining qua Court under Section 476. Of course there is nothing to prevent the presiding officer himself complaining if he likes, as pointed out in Emperor v. Mukund A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 510 only then Section 200(a-a) will not apply. In Bombay it has always been held that Section 476 in reference to Section 195(1)(c) is not confined to parties. Cf. In re Devji valad Bhavani I.L.R. (1893) 18 B. 581 from which Govinda, Aiyar v. Rex I.L.R. (1919) 42 M. 540 : 36 M.L.J. 448 dissents and which Emperor v. Balgaunda (1930) 33 Bom.L.R. 296 affirms. It is a pity that the Legislature, knowing of this disagreement, did not put the matter beyond question in 1923; but, since it did not do so, nothing is likely to be gained by referring the matter to another Full Bench to see if Madras can be brought into line with Bombay. The wording of the sections admits either view, and the provinces must agree to differ over what, after all, is a mere matter of procedure.
2. Following Govinda Aiyar v. Rex I.L.R. (1919) 42 M. 540 : 36 M.L.J. 448 as regards the abettors of the alleged forgery I cancel the Lower Court's complaint. The petition is allowed.