JUDGMENT 1. - This revision application has been filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City on January 6, 1973. The only question that arises for determination in this revision application is as to whether the proceedings pending before the criminal court should be dropped in the absence of any complaint by the Election Tribunal or the sanction of the Competent Authority. 2. The facts, which have given rise to this revision application, are as under:- 3. In February 1962, general elections to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly took place and the accused petitioner Gulab Chand was one of the contesting candidates for election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Gangapur City Constituency, while another contesting candidate from the same constituency was Shri Govind Sahai. It appears that Shri Govind Sahai was declared elected at the aforesaid election and in accordance with the relevant law, relating to the holding of elections, the returned candidate filed a statement of accounts regarding his election expenses before the Returning Officer on March 28, 1962. After some time, the successful candidate Shri Govind Sahai filed a complaint that certain interpolations have been made in the quantity of petrol purchased and the price paid by him in respect thereof in some of the vouchers submitted by Shri Govind Sahai along with his return of election expenses. The police put up a challan against 5 persons, including Gulab Chand, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 466, 477 A, 109, 193 and 120-B I. P. C. in the court of the Magistrate Sawai Madhopur on August 12, 1964. Thus, the proceedings in the aforesaid criminal case are pending for the last 15 years and according to the learned counsel for the parties, much progress has not been made as yet in that case. 4. On September 24, 1971, the applicant Gulab Chand submitted an application before the Magistrate urging that the proceedings in the criminal case, pending in his court, should be dropped in the absence of a complaint by the Election Tribunal or sanction by the Competent Authority. The application was rejected by the learned Magistrate, by his order dated October 13,1972 and a revision application filed by the accused applicant was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, by his order dated January 6, 1973. Hence this revision petition in this court. 5. The application was rejected by the learned Magistrate, by his order dated October 13,1972 and a revision application filed by the accused applicant was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, by his order dated January 6, 1973. Hence this revision petition in this court. 5. It was urged by the learned counsel for the accused applicant, in this court, that no prosecution in respect of section 193 I. P. C. can be taken cognizance of by a criminal court except on the complaint in writing of the Court, in which or in relation to any proceedings of which, the offence is alleged to have been committed, or by some other court to which that court is sub-ordinate, as provided by clause (b) of Sub-Section (it of Section 195 Cr P.C. It is alleged in the complaint that the returned candidate, Shri Govind Sahai, purchased petrol from the petrol pump of M/S Ridhi Chand Jagannath during the election campaign and in respect there of he received vouchers from the vendor specifying the quantity of petrol purchased and the price paid therefor. The vouchers, so received by Shri Govind Sahai, were produced by him along with the account relating to election expenses in the office of the Returning Officer. It is further alleged that all the accused persons conspired to fabricate false evidence in pursuance of their common object & persuaded the clerk in charge of the election record to hand over the file containing the returns submitted by Shri Govind Sahai, in respect of election expenses alongwith vouchers and thereafter the vouchers, relating to the purchase of petrol were removed and replaced by new ones which contain interpolations in respect of the quantity of petrol purchased and the price paid for the same, so that the total expenses, incurred by Shri Govind Sahai may be found to be in excess of the prescribed limit. It is alleged that the accused applicant, Gulab Chand, had filed an election petition against the returned candidate Shri Govind Sahai and that he intended to obtain production of the documents so interpolated relating to the purchase of petrol by Shri Govind Sahai in the election petition filed by him, in order to prove that the returned candidate had incurred expenses beyond the permissible limit. 6. 6. The argument of the learned, counsel for the applicant is that section 193 I. P. C. was the main or the pivotal Section and the entire case should be dropped as no complaint was filed in respect of the offence punishable under Section 193 I. P. C. On the other hand, the submission of Mr. C. K. Garg, appearing on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, is that the offence in respect of which the accused persons have been charged are different and distinct offences and the entire proceedings before the criminal court cannot be dropped merely because no complaint has been filed in respect of the offence punishable under Section 193 I. P. C.Section 195 Cr. P. C. runs as under , - "195. (i) No court shall take cognizance - (a) (i) of any offence punishable under section 175 to 188 (both inclusive of the Indian Penal Code (45 of I860), or (ii) of any abatement of, or attempt to commit, such offence or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive) 199, 200, 205 to 221 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, or except on the complaint in writing of that court or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. 7. Thus, it is clear that in respect of an offence punishable under Section 193 I. P. C. a criminal court is not empowered to take cognizance, unless a complaint in writing is made by the court, in which or in relation to any proceedings of which court, such offence is alleged to have been committed, or by some other court to which that court is subordinate. In the present case, the accused applicant and the other accused persons have been charged of having committed offences under sections 409, 466, 477 A, 109 and 120B T. P. C., besides Section 193 I. P. C. In Basirul Haq and others v. The State of West Bengal (AIR 1953 SC P.293) , it was observed by Mahajan J. as he then was, speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court, that Section 195 Cr. P. C. does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same facts and which is not included within the ambit of Section 195 Cr. P. C. Thus, the crux of the matter is that if in the course of the same occurrence, distinct offences are committed the magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance in respect of those offences, which are not covered by the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P. C. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in Basirul Haq's case .1 quoted with approval the decision of the Federal Court in Dr. Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor (AIR 1949 (F.C.) P. 43), in which case the accused was charged of having committed offences under Sections 409 and 477A I. P, C. but the offence under section 477-A I. P. C. could not be taken cognizance of without the consent of the Governor, on account of the provisions of Section 270 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The accused was charged of dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use certain medicines entrusted to him in his official capacity as a Sub-Assistant Surgeon in the employment of the State Government and it was also alleged that he wilfully and with intent to defraud, omitted to record entries in the stock book of medicines in respect of certain medicines belonging to the hospital where he was employed. The Federal Court in that case quashed the proceedings so far as charged under Section 477-A I. P. C. was concerned, as the prosecution was improper for want of proper sanction of the Governor. But at the same time, the case was sent back to the Sessions Judge for hearing the matter on merits, relating to the charge under Section 409 I. P. C. Varadachariar J., made the following observation in Dr. But at the same time, the case was sent back to the Sessions Judge for hearing the matter on merits, relating to the charge under Section 409 I. P. C. Varadachariar J., made the following observation in Dr. Hori Ram Singh's case (2):- "It however seems to me necessary to draw a distinction, for the present purpose, between the charge under Section 409 and the charge under Section 477-A I. P. C. though a reference to the capacity of the accused as a Public Servant is involved both in the charge under Section 409 and in the charge under Section 477-A there is an important difference between the two cases when one comes to deal with the act complained of. In the first, the official capacity is material only in connection with the "entreatment" and does not necessarily enter into the later act of misappropriation or conversion, which is the act complained of. In the charge under Section 477-A, the official capacity is involved in the very act complained of as amounting to a crime, because the Government of the charge is that the accused acted fraudulently in the discharge of his official duty". 8. It was, thus, held by the Federal Court that if two distant offences have been committed under the same transaction, one under section 409 and the other under Section 477-A I. P. C., there could not be any bar to the trial of the offence under section 409 I.P.C. if sanction of the Governor, required for taking cognizance in respect of the offence under Section 477-A I. P. C., has not been obtained or given. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Vivekanand Nand Kishore v. State (AIR 1961 All.P. 189) , wherein the learned Judge placed reliance on the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Basirul Haq's case (1) that if distinct offences are disclosed by the same set of fact, which are not included in the ambit of Section 195 Cr. P. C. and in respect of which sanction or complaint under Section 195 Cr. P. C. is not necessary, then the trial of such distinct offences is not barred. However, it was observed by the Learned Judge that no device or camouflage could be used for evading the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P. C. and in respect of which sanction or complaint under Section 195 Cr. P. C. is not necessary, then the trial of such distinct offences is not barred. However, it was observed by the Learned Judge that no device or camouflage could be used for evading the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P. C. and that merely by changing the garb or label of an offence, which is essentially an offence covered by the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P. C. the prosecution for such an offence cannot be taken cognizance of by mis-describing it or by putting a wrong label on it. There can be no dispute with the preposition stated above as the same is unexceptionable. However, it cannot be said that the offences under sections 466, 477-A or 409 I. P. C. are included within the offence punishable under Section 193 I. P. C in the sense that if the charge under Section 193 I. P. C. was going to fail, then the charges under Sections 409, 466 and 477-A I. P.C. would necessarily fail. In State of Rajasthan v. Prithvi Singh (1968 RLW P. 519) a learned Judge of this Court observed as under : "It would thus appear that if two distinct and separate offences are made out, one requiring a complaint under Section 195 and the other not requiring such complaint, the court is not debarred from taking cognizance of the latter offence. But the court should see that the provisions of Section 195 of the code are not evaded by devices." 10. It was also held in the aforesaid case that when in the same transaction and on the same set of facts-offences under Sections 186, 332 & 353 I. P, C. are made out cognizance of the later two offences can be taken by the courts even though no complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed in respect of an offence under Section 186 of the Penal Code, Durga Charan Naik and others v. State of Orissa (AIR 1966 SC P. 1775) , it was also held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that Section 195 Cr. P. C. does not bar the trial of the accused for the distinct offence under Section 353 I. P. C. though it may be practically based on the same facts, as the prosecution under Section 186 I. P. C. cognizance of which may be barred for want of necessary sanction under section 195 Cr. P. C. 11. In this view of the matter, I am in agreement with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the entire proceeding, pending before the criminal court cannot be dropped because complaint for an offence under Section 193 I. P. C. has not been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P. C. 12. The revision application, is, therefore, without any substance and is consequently dismissed.Revision Petition Dismissed. *******