1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.3552 of 2006 In Criminal Writ Petition No.150 of 2005 (Manohar Omkarappa Mudnaik v. Kusumkar Rambhau Bidkar and another) Smt. Meenaxi Iyer, Advocate for Applicant. Shri J.T. Gilda, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. Reserved on : 24-4-2009 Pronounced on : 4-5-2009 1. This is an application for recalling judgment delivered by this Court on 14-9-2006 in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.150 and 151 of 2005. 2. Criminal Writ Petition Nos.150 and 151 of 2005 were filed against the respondents taking exception to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who allowed Criminal Revision Applications No.123 and 124 of 2003, setting aside the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class rejecting application Exhibit 36 in Criminal Complaint No.158 of 1995 and Exhibits 16 and 17 in Criminal Complaint No.321 of 1996 moved by the accused persons therein. 2 3. The applicant had filed the said criminal complaints alleging that non-applicant No.1 K.R. Bidkar had produced some fabricated documents before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and had thus committed several offences, including that of defamation. The accused filed an applications Exhibits 36, 16 and 17 in those complaints praying for dismissal of complaints seeking protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate rejected those applications. But the learned Judge of the Court of Session held that in the absence of sanction, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the matter. This led the petitioner to file Criminal Writ Petition Nos.150 and 151 of 2005. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The documents with reference to which the offences were allegedly communicated were abstracts of Annual Confidential Reports and the return, which were produced before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. If those documents were fabricated, a Criminal Court could not have taken cognizance of such matter without the complaint in writing by the Court concerned, namely the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, since such a situation would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cognizance could not have been taken on 3 the complaint of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not find it necessary to apply to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the offence of fabrication or forgery was allegedly committed before the documents were actually produced, was not accepted by this Court. This Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petitions. 6. By the present application for recalling the judgment, it was contended by the applicant that the letter dated 4-1-1995 authorizing non-applicant No.1 K.R. Bidkar to file a return before the Administrative Tribunal, which was referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent, was fabricated. It is the grievance of the petitioner that this Court relied on the bare words of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 K.R. Bidkar was authorized by Shri V.N. Wasade to represent respondent Nos.1 to 3, the employer. It was, therefore, directed that the non-applicant may file affidavit of the author of the document and such affidavit has been filed wherein Shri V.N. Wasade, then Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Irrigation Project Circle, Nagpur, stated that he had signed the letter authorizing Shri K.R. Bidkar to file a return. So long as the superiors in the Department do not state that action of respondent No.1 K.R. Bidkar in filing return on behalf of all was unauthorized or that 4 they seek to take a different stand, no grievance could be made. In any case, the question before this Court while disposing of the writ petitions was whether the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class could have entertained such a complaint by a party in respect of proceedings before a Tribunal. No case for recalling the order is made out. 7. Application is rejected as misconceived. JUDGE Lanjewar