JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This reference has been made to this Court by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, and arises out of the following circumstances: 2. Lagan Singh, applicant, was alleged to have executed a sale deed on 19th February, 1965 of some land in favour of Khedan Singh and Mahajan Singh, opposite parties nos. 1 and 2. The alleged sale deed of Lagan Singh was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hata. According to Lagan Singh he had never executed any sale deed in favour of Khedan Singh and Mahajan Singh on 19th February, 1965 and, therefore, he filed a complaint against Khedan Singh, Mahajan Singh and five other persons on 22nd February, 1966 and specifically stated in his complaint that the alleged sale-deed dated 19th February, 1965 was a forged document and it was never executed by him and that he has never put his thumb impression on it. Lagan Singh's further allegation was that Khedan Singh and Mahajan Singh had, in fact, somehow managed to get the sale deed registered by getting it presented before the Sub-Registrar, Hata, by some person who posed himself to be Lagan Singh. His further allegation was that Jhaboo accused was the person who had got the sale deed presented before the Sub-Registrar by false impression, The remaining accused were alleged to have been in conspiracy in the registration of the sale-deed. 3. When the complaint filed by Lagan Singh was being tried by the learned Honorary Special Magistrate, Kasia in Criminal Case No. 119/9 under Sections 465/100/419 of the Indian Penal Code. Lagan Singh made an application for summoning Register N. 8 from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hata, in order to prove that the alleged sale deed dated 19th February, 1965 had not been presented by him before the Sub-Registrar and that in fact Jhaboo accused had identified the person posing as Lagan Singh in the office of the Sub-Registrar and as such was responsible for forgery. The learned Honorary Magistrate summoned Register No. 8, accordingly, and Om Prakash Khare, P. W. 4 produced that register before the learned Magistrate but claimed privilege in respect of that register under section 123 of the Evidence Act. The learned Honorary Magistrate summoned Register No. 8, accordingly, and Om Prakash Khare, P. W. 4 produced that register before the learned Magistrate but claimed privilege in respect of that register under section 123 of the Evidence Act. He also informed the learned Magistrate that the District Registrar, who was the head of his office at Gorakhpur had not given his permission to give any evidence on the basis of that register. In fact Om Prakash Khare P. W. 4 quoted the following order of the District Registrar, Gorakhpur in his deposition : "Order of the Distt, Registrar, Gorakhpur No. 520/XII; dated 21-6-65. 1. I direct the Sub-Registrar Hata to appear with the Register No. VII mentioned in the summon and to claim privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act. 2. I withhold permission to give any evidence derived from the register for which the privilege is claimed under this order". 4. Lagan Singh filed an objection to the claim of privilege by Om Prakash Khare but the learned Honorary Magistrate rejected Lagan Singh's objection and passed . the following order on 30th June, 1966: "The objection is rejected in view of the (direction) District Registrar issued to the witness." 5. Against that order Lagan Singh preferred a revision which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, who has made the present reference. 6. I have heard Shri R. N. Mulla, the learned counsel in support of the reference, Shri K. C. Dhullia, the learned Brief Holder for the State and Shri A. N. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. Mr. Mulla submitted that the provisions of Section 123 of the Evidence Act were not attracted in this case. He further submitted that only the Court could decide whether privilege could be claimed in respect of the register under section 123 of the Evidence Act and whether the said register could be , termed to be an unpublished official record relating to affairs of the State. That matter, according to Mr. Mulla, could decided only by the Court. 7. After hearing Mr. Mulla, Mr, A. N. Singh and Mr. K. C. Dhulia I find that the contentions raised by Mr. Mulla have force. That matter, according to Mr. Mulla, could decided only by the Court. 7. After hearing Mr. Mulla, Mr, A. N. Singh and Mr. K. C. Dhulia I find that the contentions raised by Mr. Mulla have force. The complainant, Lagan Singh, could prove that the person who had presented the alleged sale deed dated 19th February, 1965 was someone other than him only if the Register No. 8 in which the registration of the said sale deed was entered could be produced before the learned Magistrate. Since Lagan Singh did not possess the original sale deed he could only request the Court the to summon Register No. 8 which was the only document which could prove the allegations made by him. That register was, therefore, an important piece of evidence for the applicant Lagan Singh. If the production of that register was withheld from Court the result could be that the allegations of Lagan Singh could have remained un-investigated. The non- production of the register by claiming privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act would only amount to denial of justice to Lagan Singh, which obviously was not in public interest. Section 123 of the Evidence Act reads as follows : "No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit". 8. From a perusal of Section 123 of the Evidence Act it is clear that only those unpublished official records could be withheld on the ground of privilege which relate to affairs of State. Register No. 8 of the Registration Department certainly cannot be said to be a record relating to any affairs of State or to public policy. The production of Register No. 8 before the learned Magistrate could in no way prejudice either the interest of the public or the interest of the State. On the other hand, as already observed above its non-production could have led to misadministration of justice; hence the learned Magistrate was wrong in rejecting the objection of Lagan Singh regarding the claim of privilege by Om Prakash Khare (P. W. 4) in respect of Register No. 8. 9. The other contention of Mr. Mulla is also correct. On the other hand, as already observed above its non-production could have led to misadministration of justice; hence the learned Magistrate was wrong in rejecting the objection of Lagan Singh regarding the claim of privilege by Om Prakash Khare (P. W. 4) in respect of Register No. 8. 9. The other contention of Mr. Mulla is also correct. The ultimate decision as to whether a claim of privilege in respect of a document is well founded or not must always rest with a Court and not with a head of department to which that register belongs. The power of the Court is restricted only if it comes to the opinion that a particular document relates to the affairs of the State. The District Registrar, in my opinion, was not entitled to withhold permission to P. W. 4 to give any evidence derived from the register and claim privilege in respect of that register under the provisions of section 123 of the Evidence Act. 10. After having carefully perused the orders of the courts below, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned above I accept this reference and set aside the order of the learned Honorary Special Magistrate dated 13th June, 1966. 11. Since the Courts of the Honorary Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh has been abolished I direct the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction to summon Register No. 8 from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hata and make it available to Lagan Singh applicant for proving the allegations made by him in his complaint.