HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1402 OF 2005 ORDER: There is no representation for the revision petitioner since 20.09.2011. The case is posted to today ‘for dismissal’. However, today also there is no representation for the revision petitioner. Hence, this criminal revision is disposed of without hearing the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18.5.2005 passed in CFR No.39 of 2005 by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddutur in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner u/Sec.200 Cr.P.C. 3. The revision petitioner filed a case alleging that the accused, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, committed offences u/secs.465 and 471 IPC by trying to use forged documents in judicial proceedings. The learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddutur, considered that the complaint filed u/Sec.200 Cr.P.C. is barred by Sec.195(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short). Under Section 195 Cr.P.C. when an offence punishable u/Sec.471 IPC is lodged, the court, before which the forged document was produced, alone is competent to proceed against the accused. Admittedly, no complaint was lodged by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur, before which court the forged documents were sought to be used. The learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddutur, was correct in holding that the complaint was barred by Sec.195 Cr.P.C. and hence, the complaint is not maintainable in view of the embargo u/Sec.195 Cr.P.C. 3. Consequently, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record. The revision is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. ______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Mjl/* Dt. 21.10.2011