JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - This is an application by one of the accused to quash the order of commitment dated 14-8.1967 passed by the learned S.D.M., Bhanjanagar committing him and opposite party No. 2 to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial or an offence u/s 467 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. 2. The Mohant of Trimali Muth owns 14 acres land in village Ambodali. Indra Naik and his father claim to be the lessees of the said land under an unregistered deed of lease (Ex.1) dated 22-9-1948 executed by the Mohant. On 6.12-1964, it was alleged that Petitioner along with some others trespassed, damaged or removed crops grown on the said land by Indra Naik. On 9-12 1964 Indra Naik lodged the F.I.R. against the Petitioner and others at the P.S. During investigation, the S.I. (opp. party No. 2) seized Ex. I on 22.12-1964 from the father of Indra Naik. After close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 17-1-1965 against Petitioner and others for various offences and cognizance was taken by the S.D.M., Bhanjanagar on 22-1-1965. It was registered as G.R. Case No. 255 of 1964. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Magistrate, 1st Class, Aska in whose Court it was registered as G.R. Case No. 163 of 1965. The case was tried and judgment was delivered on 31.3.1967 convicting the Petitioner and other accused against which an appeal has been preferred and is pending. In the meanwhile on 22-4-1965, while the aforementioned G.R. Case was pending on the file of Magistrate, 1st Class, Aska, Indra Naik (p.w. 1) filed a complaint before the S.D.M., Bhanjanagar alleging that Ex.I which had been seized during investigation and filed in Court along with the charge-shett was tempered with by the Petitioner and others on 2-2-1965. This complaint was filed against the Petitioner, opposite party No. 2, who bad seized the document, and two others. The S.D.M. Bhanjanagar, after enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, took cognizance on the complaint on 27.5-1965, examined some p.ws. and committed the four accused persons to stand their trial u/s 467/34, Indian Penal Code as aforementioned. While the matter was pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on the application of prosecution, withdrawal of the case against two out of the four accused who had been committed was allowed. 3. The only point urged by Mr. and committed the four accused persons to stand their trial u/s 467/34, Indian Penal Code as aforementioned. While the matter was pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on the application of prosecution, withdrawal of the case against two out of the four accused who had been committed was allowed. 3. The only point urged by Mr. H.G. Panda, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner for quashing the commitment order is that the commitment is illegal as the learned S.D.M. had no initial jurisdiction to take cognizance against the accused by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 195(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure . According to him, in the circumstances mentioned above the power to take cognizance could have been exercised only on a complaint filed by the Magistrate and not otherwise. 4. Section 195(1), Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows: 195(1) No Court shall take congnizance: (a)... (b)... (c) of any offence described in Section 163 or punishable u/s 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the same Code, 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, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. 5. It is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the words any "offence described in Section 463 Penal Code" means all forms of forgery described therein though they may be punishable under different sections of the Code. Thus, Clause (0) will apply to offences under Sections 465, 466 and 467 as well. 6. Similarly, there is no dispute that cognizance was taken on a complaint by p.w. 1 against the Petitioner who was admittedly an accused in G.R. Case No. 163 of 1965 while the said G.R. Case was pending on 22-4-1965 alleging forgery in respect of Ex. 1 which was produced and given in evidence in the said G.R. Case. The limited point for consideration is whether the learned S.D.M., Bhanjanagar had jurisdiction to take cognizance, in view of the provisions contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been observed in the decision reported in M.L. Sethi Vs. 1 which was produced and given in evidence in the said G.R. Case. The limited point for consideration is whether the learned S.D.M., Bhanjanagar had jurisdiction to take cognizance, in view of the provisions contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been observed in the decision reported in M.L. Sethi Vs. R.P. Kapur and Another that in dealing with this question the important aspect that has to be kept in view is that the point of time at which the legality of the cognizance taken has to be judged is the time when cognizance is actually taken u/s 190, Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision for taking cognizance is contained in Section 190 Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure places a limitation on the unfettered powers of Magistrate to take cognizance. In the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court, it has also been held that Section 195(1), Code of Criminal Procedure bars any Court from taking cognizance of offences mentioned in Clause (a), (b) and (c), except when the conditions laid down in those clauses are satisfied. Learned Standing Counsel also does not dispute this position. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the (sic) conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 195(1), Code of Criminal Procedure exist in the present case to bar the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance. 7. The three conditions necessary to attract the applicability of Section 195(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure are: (1) that the offence must be one described u/s 463; (2) that the offence mentioned should be committed by a party to the proceeding in Court and (3) that such offence should be in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding. As already stated, the first condition is admitted. The second condition is also satisfied as it is not disputed that Petitioner was one of the accused in the G.R. Case which was then pending before the learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Aska. No doubt, there is some divergence of opinion as to whether to attract the application of Clause (c), the offence should have been committed by a party as such to the proceeding which in other words means that the provision will not apply where the offence has been committed prior to the offender becoming a party to the proceeding in Court. Mr. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for Petitioner relies on the decision reported in Emperor Vs. Rachappa Yellapa in support of his contention that the provision will apply even where the offence had been committed prior to the offender becoming a party to the proceeding provided the other conditions are satisfied. In the present case, however, this aspect is not very material as according to the complainant himself the alleged tampering was committed by Petitioner on 2.2.1965, by which date he was admittedly an accused in the pending G.R. Case. The third condition is that the document in respect of which the alleged offence is said to have been committed was either produced or given in evidence in such proceeding. In this case, the undisputed facts are that there was production of the document and it was subsequently given in evidence. No doubt, the production was made by the (sic) along with the charge-sheet, but obviously this production was for the purpose of tendering it in evidence, and as a matter of fact, it was subsequently tendered in evidence and marked as an exhibit. Thus, the three conditions necessary for attracting the applicability of Section 195(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure are fully satisfied in this case. As the said provision bars the jurisdiction of the learned S.D.M. in exercising the power of taking cognizance, the act of taking cognizance on the complaint by p.w. 1 was illegal and without jurisdiction. It follows that when taking of cognizance was illegal, the commitment order is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, the application is allowed and the order of commitment dated 14-8-1967 is quashed. Final Result : Allowed