JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This application has been filed by the complainant under the following circumstances: The complainant filed a complaint against some of the accused persons u/s 379, Indian Penal Code alleging removal of crop from his land. In course of the trial, the opposite party Banamali Mohanty figured as d.w.1 and produced a lease-deed purporting to have been executed in 1944. The accused persons were acquitted in the case. After disposal of the case the complainant filed a petition u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute the opposite party mainly u/s 471, Indian Penal Code for having used a forged document, namely, the lease-deed filed by him in the aforesaid criminal case. In course of the committal enquiry, the learned Subdivisional Magistrate discharged the accused u/s 209, Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that an offence u/s 471, does not come within the ambit of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, but is covered u/s 479-A, and as the procedure under that section had not been followed, the complaint was incompetent. For this, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shabir Hussein Bholu Vs. State of Maharashtra. But the learned Magistrate has not noticed a later decision of the Supreme Court in Babu Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others where their Lordships have clarified the legal position and have explained the earlier decision, and have expressly laid down that the offence u/s 471, is not covered under Sub-section (1) of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure and resort has to be taken only to Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure in case of such an offence. In view of this decision, the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be supported and must be set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to examine the evidence in the case and dispose of the same on merits. In the result, the order of the Magistrate is set aside and the revision allowed. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed