ORDER S. Malik, J. - This is an appeal by Usman and Mohammad Farooq against the judgment dated 23-10-1967 passed by Shri M.C. Goel, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, convicting them u/s 120-B read with Section 465 IPC and Under Sections 466 IPC and 471 read with Section 466 IPC. The Appellants have each been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment on each count concurrently. 2. The appeal was first taken up on the 7th of January, 1970 and as the Appellants did not put in an appearance, the learned Counsel for the State was heard and the appeal was decided. Thereafter the Appellants moved an application u/s 561-A Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. Misc. Case No. 164 of 1970) praying that the appeal be reheard for reasons enumerated in the said application. The application was allowed by the order dated 13-2-1970 and thereafter the appeal was reheard on 5-3-1970. 3. The facts apparent from the evidence on the record and not controverted in this Court are that one Moqbool Ahmed was the owner of a house and a baithak situate in village Nidru in police circle Dhampur in district Bijnor. The property was declared evacuee property as Maqbool Ahmad migrated to Pakistan. The Custodian General auctioned the property in 1960. Appellant Usman was one of the bidders and initially his bid had been accepted by the Custodian General, but subsequently, it is said the sale of the property in Usman's favour was set aside and the Custodian General sold the property to one Abdul Shakoor. Abdul Shakoor then sold the property to Mazhar Hasan through the registered sale-deed (Ex. Ka 5) dated 23-2-1963 for Rs. 500/-. Usman after he had been declared the auction purchaser, had let out the Baithak to Appellant Mohammad Farooq. After Mazhar Hasan purchased the property he demanded rent of the Baithak from Mohammad Farooq and as Mohammad Farooq refused to pay the rent or accept Mazhar Hasan as the owner of the property, Usman executed the deed dated 29-11-1963 (Ex. Ka 6) acknowledging Mazhar Hasan to be the rightful owner of the house and the Baithak. 4. It is not in dispute that thereafter Mazhar Hasan received the notice (Ex. Ka 6) acknowledging Mazhar Hasan to be the rightful owner of the house and the Baithak. 4. It is not in dispute that thereafter Mazhar Hasan received the notice (Ex. Ka 7) dated 3-10-1964 purporting to be from the Deputy Custodian General declaring Usman to be the owner of the property and threatening Mazhar Hasan with legal action if he tried to deny Usman's ownership. Admittedly, (Ex. Ka 7) is in the handwriting of Appellant Mohammad Faroog. Usman and Mohammad Farooq then sent two notices dated 9-10-1964 (Ex. Ka 12) and dated 12-10-1964 (Ex. Ka 11) on the basis of (Ex. Ka 7) dated 3-10-1964 and claimed that Mazhar Hasan had ceased to be the owner of the property and threatened to take criminal action against him if he did not recognise Usman's title to the property. 5. On receipt of the two notices Mazhar Hasan went to the Custodian General's Office in Delhi and found that no notice dated 3-10-1964 (Ex. Ka 7) had been issued by the Custodian General's Office. 6. On 23-7-1965 Mazhar Hasan tiled a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of the Baithak against Mohammad Farooq. During the pendency of that suit in the Nidru Nyaya Panchayat, Mazhar Hasan received another notice dated 8-9-1965 which also purports to have been issued by the Deputy Custodian General. This notice admittedly is in the handwriting of Usman Appellant and is Ex. Ka 10 on the record. He handed over Exs. Ka 7 and Ka 10 to the Nyaya Panchayat with the request that an inquiry be made from the office of the Custodian General at New Delhi as to whether they are genuine documents and were sent from there. After a report was received by the Nyaya Panchayat that no such notices were issued by the Deputy Custodian General, Mazhar Hasan filed the complaint which result ed in this case. 7. According to the prosecution, after Usman executed the deed of acknowledgment (Ex. Ka 6) the two Appellants entered into a conspiracy and sent the forged notices which admittedly are in their hand writing, to Mazhar Hasan to illegally deprive Mazhar Hasan of the said property. 8. According to the Appellants, on the other hand, they had sent Exs. Ka 7 and Ka 10 which are admittedly in their handwriting and also the notices (Exs. 8. According to the Appellants, on the other hand, they had sent Exs. Ka 7 and Ka 10 which are admittedly in their handwriting and also the notices (Exs. Ka 11 and Ka 12) to Mazhar Hasan after they themselves had received Ex. 1 and 2 which they believed to be genuine documents. They further alleged that in Exs. Ka 7 and Ka 10 there was no seal of the Deputy Custodian General and there was no singnature purporting to be of the issuing authority. It was further alleged that Ex. Ka 7 was not sent in the envelope (Ex. Ka 8). They examined in their defence DW 1 Nau Bahar to prove that Mazhar Hasan got prepared through him some forged papers perhaps to show that Mazhar Hasan complainant had Exs. 1 and 2 sent to the Appellants in order to put them in trouble. Both the Appellants claimed that Usman was the real owner of the property. They also examined DW 2 Yatendra Pal Singh to prove that he had investigated a case u/s 420 IPC in which he submitted a final report and that in the said case he received some papers from Delhi. The Appellants got Exs. 1 and 2 proved through the witness. He stated that Exs. 1 and 2 were in the case diary since before he took over investigations in that case and cannot say how they came to be in the case diary. He also did not state when he investigated the case or on which date he came across these papers. According to the learned Counsel for the prosecution, the Appellants when they found that they would be in trouble, themselves got an inquiry made after they rushed to New Delhi and handed over to the police Exs. 1 and 2 to concoct the defence version. 9. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined only three witnesses. PW 1 Jai Ram Singh is the Sarpanch of the Nadru Nyaya Panchayat. PW 2 Kishan Singh of the office of the Custodian General, New Delhi was examined to prove that Exs. Ka 7 and Ka 10 are forged documents and that no such notices were issued by the Deputy Custodian or from his office and that even the seals of the [Deputy Custodian General appearing on the said documents are forged. He also proved that the envelope (Ex. Ka 7 and Ka 10 are forged documents and that no such notices were issued by the Deputy Custodian or from his office and that even the seals of the [Deputy Custodian General appearing on the said documents are forged. He also proved that the envelope (Ex. Ka 8) bears a forged seal of the Deputy Custodian General, New Delhi. It may be mentioned that Exs. 1 and 2 were not shown to PW 2 Kishan Singh and the Appellants did not try to get these documents summoned. These documents were produced and proved through DW 2 Yatendra Pal Singh. PW 3 is complainant, Mazhar Hasan, who narrated the facts mentioned. 10. As has been pointed out, the findings of fact arrived at by the court below were not challenged in this Court. Moreover, it has been proved by the prosecution by cogent evidence that Mohammad Farooq has sent to Mazhar Hasan Ex. Ka-7 and that it is in Mohammad Farooq's handwriting. It is true that neither of the Appellants admitted to have forged and affixed the forged seal of the Dy. Custodian General on Exs. Ka 7 and Ka 10. According to the Appellants, the signatures purporting to be on behalf of the Dy. Custodian General in Exs. Ka 7 and Ka 10 were not there when they sent these documents to Mazhar Hasan. These allegations made by the accused have been rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. I see no reason to doubt the statement made by Mazhar Hasan that he received these documents with the seals and the signatures appearing on them. It is significant to note that neither Ex. Ka 7 nor Ex. Ka 10 was sent as a copy. If the Appellants had sent these documents as copies of the notices they are said to have received which they believed to be from the Dy. Custodian General, they would have sent Exs. Ka 7 and Ka 10 showing them as copies. This was not done and as is apparent from these documents, they were sent as original notices from the Dy. Custodian General. 11. Moreover, there is nothing in Ex. Ka 7 from which it may appear that a direction was given to Mohammad Farooq to send its copy of Mazhar Hasan. Therefore, there is no force in the defence allegation that Mohammad Farooq had sent Ex. Custodian General. 11. Moreover, there is nothing in Ex. Ka 7 from which it may appear that a direction was given to Mohammad Farooq to send its copy of Mazhar Hasan. Therefore, there is no force in the defence allegation that Mohammad Farooq had sent Ex. Ka 7 as in the document he is said to have received he was directed to send a copy. It appears that subsequently the Appellants realised that they might be prosecuted for what they had done and therefore, manufactured Exs. 1 and 2 to explain why they sent these notices (Exs. Ka 7 and Ka 10) to Mazhar Hasan. As appears from Ex. Ka 7 it is a notice addressed to Mazhar Hasan. Therefore, there was no reason why Mohammad Farooq thought it necessary to send its copy to Mazhar Hasan as the original. It may be repeated that the fact that Ex. Ka 7 was sent as the original notice from the Dy. Custodian General and not as copy, shows that Mohammad Farooq wanted to mislead Mazhar Hasan and that it was sent so that Mazhar Hasan may treat it ag a notice from the Dy. Custodian General. The two notices (Exs. Ka 11 and Ka 12) sent by the Appellants subsequently go to show that the Appellants had conspired and as a result of the conspiracy, had Ex. Ka 7 sent to Mazhar Hasan purporting to be from the Dy Custodian General, It is also apparent from Ex. Ka 8, as proved by Mazhar Hasan, that the notice (Ex. Ka 7) was sent in the envelope (Ex. Ka 8) and the same was posted at New Delhi so that Mazhar Hasan may be convinced that the notice had come from the Dy. Custodian General. 12. I also agree with the findings of fact arrived at by the lower court against Usman Appellant. 13. The defence evidence was rightly rejected by the lower court. DW 1 Nau Bahar appears to be a got up witness, who was produced to repeat a concocted story. Exs. 1 and 2 produced by DW 2 Yatendra Pal Singh were not mentioned by the Appellant either before the committing Magistrate or in the sessions court. Neither of the Appellants staged that they had handed over the originals to the police. Moreover, there is nothing in Exs. Exs. 1 and 2 produced by DW 2 Yatendra Pal Singh were not mentioned by the Appellant either before the committing Magistrate or in the sessions court. Neither of the Appellants staged that they had handed over the originals to the police. Moreover, there is nothing in Exs. 1 and 2 to show that they were officially received by the police. There is nothing to show how the documents came to be in the case diary of the case investigated by DW 2 Yatendra Pal Singh. There is no endorsement or writing on Exs. 1 and 2 to show that they were the subject matter of an investigation by the police. These documents could be prepared at any time. It has already been pointed out that DW 2 Yatendra Pal Singh did not state that these documents came to his notice before this case was brought against the Appellants. 14. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that in view of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no court should have taken cognizance of this case till a complaint was filed by Nidru Nyaya Panchayat where the documents (Exs. Ka 7 and Ka 10) were produced by Mazhar Hasan in the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent he had brought against Mohammad Farooq in the said Nyaya Panchayat. 15. Section 83 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act (UP Act XXVI of 1947) lays down the procedure to be followed by the Nyaya Panchayat to ascertain the facts and it goes on to lay down that "The CPC 1908, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 shall not apply to any civil case, criminal case or revenue case in a Nyaya Panchayat except as provided in this Act or as may be prescribed." u/s 195 Sub-section (1) Clause (b) or Clause (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Court, has to record a finding that a prima facie case has been made out and it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry be made and thereafter it has to file a complaint in the appropriate court. There is nothing in the UP Panchayat Raj Act which makes Sections 195 and 476 Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to the proceedings before it, nor does it provide how the complaint is to be filed by the Sarpanch and the Panches constituting a Nyaya Panchayat. To my mind therefore the point raised by the learned Counsel for the first time in this Court has no force. In-this connection I may refer to the decisions of the Full Bench of this Court Emperor Vs. Raja Kushal Pal Singh, AIR 1931 All 443 that "a complaint outside the provisions of Section 476 cannot be filed by any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court under its inherent jurisdiction." 16. Further Ex. Ka 10 which is a document forged by Usman, was not forged by a party to that suit. As will appear from Ex. Ka 9, only Mazhar Hasan and Mohammad Farooq were parties to that suit and not Usman. This point has been carefully considered by Seth J. in Jiwa Ram and Others Vs. Gangoli, AIR 1949 All 392 . That was also a case where certain forged documents were produced and it was held that persons not parties to the proceedings can be prosecuted upon a private complaint. The same view was taken by the Full Bench in Raja Kushal Pal Singh's case and it was held that "Clause (c) of Section 195 applies only to cases where an offence is committed by a party, as such, to a proceeding in any Court in respect of a document which has been produced or given in evidence in such proceedings." 17. As regards Ex. Ka 7, it was not forged after Mohammad Farooq had become a party to that suit. As is apparent from the evidence on the record, Ex. Ka 7 came into existence before the suit was filed. No doubt in Emperor v. Bhawani Das ILR 38 All. 169 Tud ball and Piggott, JJ. held that Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply even to an offence which had been committed before a person became a party to a suit, but in the Full Bench case of Raja Kushal Pal Singh it was held that the offence should be one which has been committed by party to a proceeding. held that Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply even to an offence which had been committed before a person became a party to a suit, but in the Full Bench case of Raja Kushal Pal Singh it was held that the offence should be one which has been committed by party to a proceeding. Now an offence which has already been committed by a person who does not become a party till, say, 30 years after the commission of the offence cannot be said to have been committed "by a party" within the meaning of Clause (c). The word "party" must mean a party and nothing else. If we lay a little emphasis on the word "party" or if we add the words "as such" after the word "party" the meaning of Clause (c) would be quite in keeping with the provisions of Section 476 Code of Criminal Procedure." 18. It may further be pointed out that the meaning of the words "...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;..." appearing in Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure shows that the document in respect of which offences enumerated in Clause (c) are said to have been committed, must have either been produced or given in evidence in the proceeding in the Court concerned, in this case in the suit pending before the Nyaya Panchayat. Admittedly, Ex. Ka 7 was not given in evidence. It was urged on behalf of Mohammad Farooq that Ex. Ka 7 was produced in the said suit within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not agree with this contention. The words "produced...in such proceeding" appearing in Clause (c), in my opinion, mean production of a document by a party in support of its claim in such proceeding. The suit was merely for arrears of rent and not a declaration of title. Usman had not even been impleaded as a party. In this case, as appears from the facts proved, Mazhar Hasan did not produce Ex. The suit was merely for arrears of rent and not a declaration of title. Usman had not even been impleaded as a party. In this case, as appears from the facts proved, Mazhar Hasan did not produce Ex. Ka 7 in support of the claim he had made in the suit and therefore, in this case the filing of the document in the Nyaya Panchayat cannot be said to amount to "document produced...in such proceeding" appearing in Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that Mazhar Hasan had merely filed these documents to get a report regarding their genuineness or otherwise from the Custodian General at New Delhi through the Nyaya Panchayat. The production of these documents by Mazhar Hasan, it appears, had nothing to do with the suit. Therefore, in my opinion, Section 195(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply to the facts of this case. 19. It was next contended on behalf of the Appellants that as there is nothing on the record to show that Mazhar Hasan really was the owner of the property and that the auction sale in favour of Usman was actually set aside by the Custodian General, it could not be said that the auction sale in favour of Usman was actually set aside by the Custodian General, it could not be said that the documents were forged or used as genuine in order to cause any wrongful loss to Mazhar Hasan or any wrongful gain to the Appellants. This contention also has no force. 20. 'Forgery' has been defined in Section 463 IPC. As will appear from a perusal of Section 463 IPC, making a false document or even a part of a document with intent...to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with any property...is forgery. In this case the documents in question were forged to support the claim put forward by both the Appellants that the house and the baithak belonged to Usman and therefore, Mohammad Farooq was not liable to pay any rent to Mazhar Hisan. The intention also appears to have been to cause Mazhar Hasan to part with the property. It was not controverted that the ingredients of Sections 465, 466 and 471 IPC have been made out, once the findings of fact arrived at by the lower court are accepted. 21. The intention also appears to have been to cause Mazhar Hasan to part with the property. It was not controverted that the ingredients of Sections 465, 466 and 471 IPC have been made out, once the findings of fact arrived at by the lower court are accepted. 21. Under the circumstances, after considering the entire evidence on the record, I find that the Appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced and see no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. The Appellants are on bail. They shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentences passed against them and failing that they shall be taken into custody. Appeal dismissed.