Crl. Revision No. 2615 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 2615 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:- 19.08.2011 Bhupinder Singh ....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Ms. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) Assailed in this petition is the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rajpura, discharging the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') of the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. FIR No. 81 dated 20.11.2002 was registered against Nirmal Singh, Devinder Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Hardip Singh and Harjit Kaur @ Surjit Kaur, under Sections 325, 323, 148 and 149 IPC at P.S. Ghanaur, wherein, the tractor bearing registration No. PCS-704, make Mahindra-495, was taken into possession. The said tractor was owned by Jarnail Singh son of Bhag Singh, Crl. Revision No. 2615 of 2008 (O&M) 2 who had left for Canada. Devinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh are alleged to have produced some other person in place of Jarnail Singh, original owner, to get the aforesaid tractor released on sapurdari. Consequently, a case was registered against respondent Nos. 2 to 4. But, the trial Court has discharged them on 17.10.2008. The trial Court has taken wrong view of the matter, while holding that since the forgery was committed inside the Court, therefore, no complaint or police action could be proceeded, but it was the Court, which was competent to file a complaint. That is not the intention of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Actually, if a document is tampered, forged or interpolated while in the custody of the Court, then the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) is attracted. Similar observations were made by a Five Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & another, 2005 (3) J.T. 195, wherein it has been held as under:- “25. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C., would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. 26. In the present case, the will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody's case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195 (b) (ii) was committed in respect to the said will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. would not Crl. Revision No. 2615 of 2008 (O&M) 3 come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.” In view of the said fact, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is palpably wrong and deserves to be set aside. Prima facie case to frame charge against the accused is made out. Resultantly, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 26.09.2011. (A.N.JINDAL) 19th of August, 2011 JUDGE ajp