1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION(MAIN) NO. 20 OF 2009 Mr. Paramananda Ecnata Naik Bandivadekar, major, married, Resident of Bamonwado, Siolim, Bardez, Goa. ... Applicant versus Smt. Archana Milind Naik Bandivadekar, major, widow of late Milind Ecnata Naik Bandivadekar, resident of House No.1115, Bichu Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum Karnataka. ... Respondent Shri V. P. Thali, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 8TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 23-10-2008 of the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, upholding the Order dated 6-10-2006 of the learned Magistrate, Pernem by which an objection taken with reference to Section 2 195(1)(b) of the Code has been rejected. 3. The Applicant herein is accused no.4 in a criminal case filed by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 under Sections 199, 200 r/w Section 193 I.P.C. 4. The facts stated show that the Complainant was the widow of one of the sons of late Devki Naik, by name Eknath Naik. It appears that the remaining three sons of the said Smt. Devki Naik got a Deed of Qualification of Heirs drawn before the Notary Public showing that they were the only heirs of the said Smt. Devki Naik by excluding the Complainant, the widow of one of the sons of the said Smt. Devki Naik and thereafter filed the said deed before the A.K, Records of Rights for the purpose of carrying out mutation of form Nos. I and XIV and carried out the same. The objection taken on behalf of the Applicant/Accused is that the cognizance of offence could not have been taken without the complaint having been filed by the Revenue Court and it is this objection which has been rejected by the Courts below, though for different reasons. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant has relied upon a Judgment of this Court in the case of Emperor v. Narayan Ganpaya Havnik(1914 Bombay Law Reporter, Vol.XVI page 678) wherein it is held that a Mamlatdar holding an inquiry in relation to the Record of Rights is a Revenue Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(c) of the Code. However, the controversy raised on behalf of the Applicant is no longer res integra in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and 3 another((2005) 4 SCC 370) which was followed by this Court in an unreported Judgment dated 13-1-2006 in Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2005. In the said Judgment, this Court had observed as follows:- “Secondly, with reference to the words “in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court” appearing in Section 195(1(b)(ii) of the Code, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another((2005) 4 SCC 370) has held that the bar created by the said provision of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code would apply in a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not appear to be in tune with clauses (a)(i) and b(i) and consequently with the scheme of Section 195 of the Code. Assuming for a moment that the Speaker was a Court it was nobody's case that the controversial document was forged or fabricated subsequent to its production before the Speaker and on this count also the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code were clearly inapplicable to the case of the applicants/accused”. 5. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and followed by 4 this Court, the objection taken by the Applicant/Accused could not have been entertained by the Court. 6. Shri V. P. Thali, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant has also taken an objection in this petition as regards limitation and that the ingredients of the offences alleged were not made out. 7. Shri J. P. Mulgaonakr, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No.1/Complainant submits that besides the objection with reference to Section 195(1)(b) of the Code no other objection was taken by the Applicant/Accused before the learned Magistrate. On perusal of the records, I have no hesitation to accept the said statement of Shri Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel, and being so this Court is not called upon to consider any other objection taken since such an objection was not taken before the learned trial Court. The Applicant/Accused would be at liberty to raise any such objections if permissible in law. 8. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 22-6-2009 at 10.00 a.m. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD