Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. Smt. Kanaklata Sinha filed a complaint, through her son Sri Dwijendra Nath Sinha, against the four accused-opposite parties under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the Penal Code in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging, inter alia, that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention dishonestly and fraudulently created a large number of documents forging the signatures of the petitioners and her son Mrinal Kanti Sinha, and used those documents before the Income-tax authorities as well as before the Registrar of Firms as genuine knowing those documents to be forged to deprive the petitioner from her shares in her father's partnership business. Pursuant to that complaint the accused-opposite parties were summoned under Sections 467, 468 and 471/34 of the IPC. After entering appearance the accused persons challenged the initiation of the prosecution on the ground that as on the own showing of the complainant the forged documents were used in proceedings before the Income-tax Officer and since such proceedings were 'proceedings in a Court' within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance except on the complaint in writing of the concerned Income-tax Officer or his superiors. The learned Magistrate accepted the said contention and dropped the prosecution. Aggrieved thereby the complainant moved this Court by filing this revisional application, which was heard as a contested one.
2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case 6f Lalji Haridas v. State of Maharashtra, reported in : 1964CriLJ249 the proceeding before the I.T.O. in which the alleged forged documents were used, must be held to be proceeding before a Court and consequently filing of complaint by the Income-tax authority under Section 195(1)(b) was a condition precedent for taking cognizance. But then such a complaint will be necessary if the original forged document is used before the Income-tax Officer. In other words, if copies of the forged documents are produced before a Court, no complaint by the Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Budhu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1963(2) Cri LJ 698. To look into this aspect of the matter I called for and looked into the relevant file of the I.T.O. but the original documents allegedly forged are not in the file but copies thereof are there. It was however asserted on behalf of the accused opposite parties that in fact the originals were produced and they were taken back. There may be some substance in this contention but it is difficult at this stage to conclusively hold that the original forged documents were produced before the I.T.O. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate was not justified to drop the proceeding without correctly ascertaining whether the originals were produced before the Income-tax Officer or not. If however it is subsequently brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that the original forged documents were produced before the Income-tax Officer he will be fully justified in dropping the prosecution so far as it related to user of forged documents in the proceedings before the I.T.O.
3. It however appears from the complaint that the forged documents were also used before the Registrar of Firms. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the Registrar of Firms is not a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b). If therefore offences for which the opposite parties have been arraigned have been committed in relation to the proceeding before the Registrar of Firms no complaint of the Registrar was necessary. The learned Magistrate was therefore not justified in dropping the prosecution altogether, even if it was accepted that the original forged documents were produced before the I.T.O.
4. For the foregoing discussions I set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. The application is thus allowed.