1. In this case the petitioners before us were committed to the Sessions Court of Anantapur, accused Nos. 1 and 2. charged, under Section 476, Indian Pena' Code, for using as genuine a forged document, a Will, which he knew to be forged or had reason to believe to be forged in certain proceedings for the transfer of patta with regard to certain landed properties and accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 under Section 467, Indian Penal Code, with forging of that document. The petitioners contend before us that the case cannot be proceeded with against them without a proper sanction being obtained under Section 195, Clause 1(c), Criminal Procedure Code. It is clear from the record that the Will was produced by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in certain proceedings for the transfer of patta, before the Revenue Authorities and that though the Deputy Tahsildar had the enquiry in these proceedings conducted through the Revenue Inspector, he passed the final orders refusing mutation of names in the pattah. In circumstances like this It has been already held by this Court in Queen-Empress v. Munda Shett 24 M. 121 : 2 Weir. 170, that the Deputy Tahsildar constitutes a Revenue Court and the sanction of that Court is necessary for the parties to the proceedings to be proceeded: against under Section 471 of the Indian; Penal Code with reference to the document; filed before that Court. Following that, ruling I must hold that, so far as accused, Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the commital order must be quashed for want of sanction.
2. As regards the other accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5, their case stands on a different footing. They were not parties to the proceedings before the Revenue Court and what' is more they are not charged with the same: offence as accused Nos. 1 and 2. They are charged with one kind of offence under Section 467 while accused Nos. 1 and 2 are charged with another under Section 471 as already pointed out:
3. The Vakil for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the ruling in Narayan Dhondde v. Risbud, In re 6 Ind. Cas. 529 : 12 Bom. L.R. 383 : 11 Cr. L.J. 368. and has asked that, we should read Section 195, Clause 1(c) as meaning that if an offence has been committed with reference to any document produced or given in evidence in any proceeding before a Court no person who is a party to that offence whether he be a party to the proceeding or not can be proceeded against criminally without the necessary sanction being obtained under the section. That question, however, we need: not decide, for even assuming tret the Bombay ruling is correct on which I express no opinion at present, it could not apply to the present case as the offences charged here are two different offences. There-, fore, so far as accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, there is no ground for setting aside the committal order and against them the trial must go on.
4. I agree and have nothing to add.