JUDGMENT D.P. Uniyal, J. - The applicant was convicted under Sec. 471, I. P. C. and sentenced to 2 years R. I. On appeal his conviction and sentence were maintained by the Sessions Judge. 2. In 1962 the applicant filed a suit in the court of Judge, Small Causes, against Bal Kishan for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note Ex. Ka-4 and receipt Ex. Ka-5 alleged to have been executed by the defendant in his favour. It was alleged by the defendant Bal Kishan that the promissory note and the receipt had been forged by altering the day and the date in those documents so as to bring the suit within the period of limitation. 3. The Judge, Small Cause Court, dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by time, fie held that, the pro-note and the receipt were forged documents and the plaintiff had used the said forged documents in evidence as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe that they were forged. He accordingly filed a complaint against the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 479-A. 4. The case was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Agra, who convicted the applicant of the offence under Sec. 471, I. P. C. as said above, and his conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge. 5. On behalf of the applicant it was contended that the complaint instituted by the Judge, Small Cause Court, under Sec. 479-A was incompetent and no prosecution and conviction of the applicant could be recorded on the basis of such complaint. It was said that the provisions of sub-Sec. (6) of Sec. 479-A created a bar in making a complaint in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed under Sec. 471, I. P. C. 6. To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Code relating to proceedings taken in respect of offences affecting the administration of justice. Sec. 476(1) provides-- "When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is .... of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Sec. 195, sub-Sec. (1), Cl. (b) or Cl. Sec. 476(1) provides-- "When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is .... of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Sec. 195, sub-Sec. (1), Cl. (b) or Cl. (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court, such court may . . . record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the court, and shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction........." 7. By Cl. (c) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 195 cognizance of an offence falling under Sec. 471, I. P. C. may be taken on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned,when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding. 8. The provisions of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 476 have to be read along with the provisions of Sec. 195(1) (c) in order to find out as to whether a complaint in respect of such an offence falls within the meaning of Sec. 476 or not. 9. Sec. 479-A, so far as material, reads as follows - "Notwithstanding anything contained in Secs. 476 to 479 inclusive, when any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding .... the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court . . . ." 10. Cl. (6) of Sec. 479-A says that "no proceedings shall be taken under Secs. 476 to 479 inclusive for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if in respect of such a person proceedings may be taken under this section." 11. Cl. . . ." 10. Cl. (6) of Sec. 479-A says that "no proceedings shall be taken under Secs. 476 to 479 inclusive for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if in respect of such a person proceedings may be taken under this section." 11. Cl. (6) prohibits the making of a complaint by a court under the provisions of Secs. 476 to 479 inclusive for prosecution of a person who has appeared before it as a witness. It will be seen that a court has jurisdiction to make a complaint under Sec. 476 only in cases where the offence alleged is committed by a party to a proceeding in any court by producing a forged document or using a forged document in evidence. For the purpose of bringing the complaint within the provisions of Sec. 476 it is not necessary that the party concerned must have appeared as a witness in that court. It is sufficient if he has produced a forged document or has intended to use such document as evidence in the case. Sec. 479-A, on the other hand, envisages that the complaint made by the court must be against a person who has appeared before it as a witness and that such person must have intentionally given false evidence as a witness in that court. 12. An offence under Sec. 471, I. P. C. is complete once the document is produced or given in evidence, in court so that it is not necessary for the person liable to be prosecuted under Sec. 471, I. P. C. to appear as a witness in court. It follows, therefore, that where a forged document is produced or is said to be used as evidence in the course of a judicial proceeding, the court has jurisdiction to proceed against him under the provisions of Sec. 476, Cr. P. C., because the offence alleged to have been committed is one which comes within the purview of Cl. (c) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 195, Cr. P. C. By reason of the bar created by Cl. (6) of Sec. 479-A, that section would not be applicable to such a case, because the offence alleged to have been committed was complete even before the party to the suit or proceeding came to be examined as a witness in court. 13. P. C. By reason of the bar created by Cl. (6) of Sec. 479-A, that section would not be applicable to such a case, because the offence alleged to have been committed was complete even before the party to the suit or proceeding came to be examined as a witness in court. 13. In Babu Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 725 while dealing with the scope of the provisions of Sec. 479-A, it was observed: "A person making a false entry in any book or record or by making any document containing a false statement may, if the prescribed conditions of Sec. 463 are fulfilled, commit an offence of forgery. But the important ingredient which constitutes fabrication of false evidence within the meaning of Sec. 192 Penal Code beside causing a circumstance to exist or making a false document - to use a compendious expression - is the intention that the circumstances so caused to exist or the false document made may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or before a public servant or before an arbitrator, lead to the forming of an erroneous opinion touching "any point material to the result of the proceeding. The offences of forgery and of fabricating false evidence for the purpose of using it in a judicial proceeding are, therefore, distinct, and within the description of fabricating false evidence for the purpose specified in Sec. 479-A, Cr. P. C., the offence of forgery is not included. In any event the offence penalised under Sec. 471, I. P. C. can never be covered by sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 479-A. Therefore, for taking proceedings against a person who is found to have used a false document dishonestly or fraudulently in any judicial proceeding, resort may only be had to Sec. 476, Cr. P. C.". 14. The applicant in the instant case was a party to the suit and had also examined himself as a witness in the case. The two impugned documents had been filed by him in respect of his claim. These documents having been found to be forged, their production by him amounted to the user of fabricated documents in evidence. In such a case the Judge Small Causes was competent to take proceedings against the applicant under Sec. 476, Cr. P. C. and not under Sec. 479-A, Cr. These documents having been found to be forged, their production by him amounted to the user of fabricated documents in evidence. In such a case the Judge Small Causes was competent to take proceedings against the applicant under Sec. 476, Cr. P. C. and not under Sec. 479-A, Cr. P. C. Consequently the conviction of the applicant based as it is on the wrong assumption of jurisdiction by the court, must be held to be illegal. The application in revision is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on the applicant k set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond's are discharged.