JUDGMENT M. Wahajuddin, J. - The applicant has come forward with a prayer that the order, dated 29 April 1980, of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Agra, in Criminal Case No. 211 of 1982 under Section 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code (Mithlesh Kumar v. Bhagwan Das Sathi) dismissing the applicant's complaint and the order, dated 4 November 1980, of the Second Additional Sessions Judge in revision may both be quashed and the Court may pass such orders as it deems fit. 2. It would appear that Bhagwan Das Sathi, who is a trade union Leader, preferred an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on behalf of a large number of workers making a claim for certain amount on their behalf. The Assistant Labour Commissioner in pursuance of such application issued a certificate as is provided for in S. 6H (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The applicant filed a criminal complaint urging that out of the persons on whose behalf the application was preferred by opposite party 2, ten persons are genuine claimants and one, namely, Sohan Lal was dead by that time and the remaining others had neither signed nor authorised opposite party 2 to make any claim on their behalf. In the complaint it was urged that actually the signatures of suc4 persons were forged and a forged document was prepared and filed by opposite party 2 as a claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. It seems that both the Courts below made a biased approach in the sense that the Judicial Magistrate held that the complaint was barred by S. 195, Criminal Procedure Code, while the revisional Court held that though it is not so the complaint is barred by S. 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Of course in addition to that the Magistrate held that prima facie case is not disclosed which conclusion was upheld by the revisional Court. 3. I am conscious of the fact that ordinarily the Court will not exercise inherent powers when there are concurrent findings of the two Courts below. But S. 482 empowers the Court to correct any abuse of the process of law or to undo any injustice. The complaint is not barred by S. 195, Criminal Procedure Code ; Sub-section (3) of S. 195, Criminal Procedure Code, expressly laid down : " In Cl. (b) of Sub-sec. But S. 482 empowers the Court to correct any abuse of the process of law or to undo any injustice. The complaint is not barred by S. 195, Criminal Procedure Code ; Sub-section (3) of S. 195, Criminal Procedure Code, expressly laid down : " In Cl. (b) of Sub-sec. (1) the term `Court' means a civil revenue or criminal Court and includes a Tribunal constituted or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by teat Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section." 4. Offences under Sections 467 and 471 are some of the offences specific under S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) but before such person puts in appearance and takes any such plea of that nature either by means of application or otherwise at any later stage and the matter is examined, it is not possible to record any finding on this point and without a finding of fact the bar could not be attracted. The bar contained under S. 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act is not absolute but qualified. The two conditions aforesaid have to be satisfied and then the bar would operate. In the result it would appear that the very basic approach of the Magistrate as well as the revisional Court is erroneous. It is stated in the complaint that opposite party 2 filed a claim application on behalf of a number of people and some signatures were forged and one man was not even alive. It is alleged that it is opposite party 2 who identified the signatures. The revisional Court laid stress upon the case of Hira Lal Jain v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2598. It is a case in which an advocate engaged by some persons for identifying them concerning land acquisition compensation money claimed identified them though they were not genuine persons. That was a case of lawyer and the consideration that weighed with the Court was that in District Courts men in fact sometimes make wrong identification by misrepresentation. The matter is a mixed question of fact and law. It is always open to the opposite party after putting appearance to raise such plea which the Court would consider. I do not desire to express any further opinion on facts as one or the other party may be embarrassed by any observation and any prejudice may be caused. The matter is a mixed question of fact and law. It is always open to the opposite party after putting appearance to raise such plea which the Court would consider. I do not desire to express any further opinion on facts as one or the other party may be embarrassed by any observation and any prejudice may be caused. The best course in the circumstances of the present case is to quash the order, dared 29 April 1Q80, of the Magistrate and the order, dated 4 November 1980, of the revisional Court. In fact, opposite party 2, had already been summoned. The Magistrate has to observe the procedure laid down in Sections 244 and 245, Criminal Procedure Code, unless even before recording any further evidence he finds it a case for discharge. I may also mention that a plea under S. 21 of the Industrial Disputes Act is a plea based on mixed question of facts and law. Unless on the facts established before the Magistrate it is shown prima facie before the Magistrate that the two conditions are made out a bar of S. 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act as such would not apply. It will be open to the Magistrate to consider this plea. I am surprised that how the revisional Court proceeded to consider such type of plea neither urged nor raised before the trial Court. 5. In the result the application is allowed with the aforesaid observations.