JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in his order dated August 18, 198i holding that the complaint has not been filed by the authorised Court and, in compliance of the offence under section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. He allowed the application preferred by the non-petitioner made before the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 245(2) Cr. P.C. 2. A complaint under section 466, 465, 471, 201, 204, 267, 114, 120(b) and 1119 IPC was filed on 22-9-75 by Anandilal Verma against Kanvriya and others in the Court of the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sambhar Lake. It was everred in the plaint that Shri Kanvriya was the Sub-Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar lake on 30-5-69. There was Khasra No. 604 in the Khatedari of the father of the petitioner and a suit for declaration and injunction bad been filed against Gram Panchayat, Hirnoda, and Sarpanch etc. and in that suit i.e. Chitarmal v. Gram Panchayat, Hirnoda (No 162/61) after framing the issues a decree was made on 8th May, 1967. It is further averred in the complaint that an application was filed by Shri Narain etc. before the Collector, Jaipur which was sent by the Collector, Shri Krishna the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake for enquiry. A report was called for by August 20, 1968. Other persons who cannot be arrayed in the complaint as non-petitioner No. 4 to 11 who are all alleged to have filed a complaint before Shri Kanvriya, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambharlake and Shri Kauvriya arrived at the spot without any notice and the complainant was called The complainant was threatened by Shri Kanvriya and was asked as to why the complainant had got arrested Shri Narain etc, when he was Magistrate. The complaint further proceed-es that even after issuing the decree of the revenue Court, Simi Kanvriya without preparing any side plan and inspection note and without intimating the next date to the complainant left the place. Shri Kanvriya and other persons are said to have entered into conspiracy and prepared a false document (site plan). According to the complainant the document was prepared in order to cause loss to the complainant and a false evidence was created, in relation to an incident which is said to have taken place in the month of August. 1968 was filed on October 22, 1975 i.e. almost after seven years of the incident. According to the complainant the document was prepared in order to cause loss to the complainant and a false evidence was created, in relation to an incident which is said to have taken place in the month of August. 1968 was filed on October 22, 1975 i.e. almost after seven years of the incident. An effort was made to explain the delay in para 14 of the complaint and the delay was sought to be explained as.- " ;g gS fd eqLrxhl ds ,slk bLrxkls dks iqfyl esa blh U;k;ky; esa rQ~rh'k gsrq Hkstk Fkk tks U;k;ky; ds ryc rdktksa ds Hkh okfil ugha vk;k gSA vr% ;g bLrxklk is'k gSA " 3. The learned Magistrate recorded that evidence under section 200 and under section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter under his order dated 29-1-1981 the cognizance only against accused C.L. Kanvriya, the then Sub-Divisional officer, Sambhar lake for offence under section 466 IPC was taken. 4. It may be stated that said order of taking cognizance was challenged by Shri Kanvriya under section 482 Cr.P.C. but the Court did not allow to interfere in the aforesaid order. 5. Thereafter an application under section 445(2) Cr.P.C. was made by Shri C.L.Kanvriya before the learned Magistrate and on that application the learned Magistrate made the impugned order and held that no cognizance of the offence could have been taken without a complaint by the Court concerned. 6. I have heard Mr. Verma, the petitioner who is arguing his case and Shri Amrit Kumar who is assisted by Shri R.P. Garg for Shri Kanvriya. It may be said at the very out set that the ground on which the learned Magistrate passed such decision under sub-section (2) of Section 245 Cr P.C. does not hold good and the learned Magistrate could not have been taken without a complaint in writing by the Court concerned in view of the provisions of Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. It may also be stated that a complaint, the substance of which has already been given in the earlier part of the judgrrents, was in respect of some interpolation and forgery alleged to have been committed by Shri Kanvriya, the then S.D.0 , Sambhar lake, in a case under section 133 Cr.P.C. It is alleged that he prepared false document and also made interpolation in the order which was made by him on August 28, 1968. A bare reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C. will show that there is no mention of Section 466 IPC and all that has been stated in Sub-Section (1)(b)(ii) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is that cognizance shall not be taken of any offence described in Section 463 Cr.P.C. or punish,able under Section 461, 475 or Section 476 IPC and when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document provided or given in evidence in a proceedings in any Court The words "committed in respect of the document produced or given in evidence" are not without significance. Therefore, if the allegations are that the presiding officer himself forged and document, made some interpolation then section 195(1) (b)(ii) Cr.P.C. will not be attracted. The very spirit of that Section is t hat the offence mist be alleged to have been committed by the parties to the proceedings and the Presiding officer of the Court can not by any stretch of imagination be a party to the proceedings. The Courts have had the occasion to examine section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court in two cases Govind Mehta v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1708) and Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1935) examined the aforesaid provision. In that case the presiding officer was alleged to have committed some forgery in the order sheets and cognizance of the offence was taken against him on the complaint by the Public Prosecutor who filed the same after having obtained the sanction under section 197 of the Competent authority. An objection was raised on behalf of the accused that in view of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr P.C. cognizance of the offence could not have been taken. The Supreme Court said that the offence alleged to have been committed must have been committed by a party to the proceedings. In the case of Patel Laljibhai Somabhai (sutra) a similar view has been taken and it has been held that provisions of Section 195(1)(c) are confined to those case in which offences specified therein were committed by a party to the proceedings in the character as such party. In the case of Patel Laljibhai Somabhai (sutra) a similar view has been taken and it has been held that provisions of Section 195(1)(c) are confined to those case in which offences specified therein were committed by a party to the proceedings in the character as such party. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Trilok Chand and others v. State, AIR 1959 Allahabad 512 has said that section 195(1)(6) cannot apply when the presiding officer of a court itself is alleged to have committed the offence, for the simple reason that it would be absorbed to require that he cannot be prosecuted except on a complaint made by himself. 7. It will, therefore, be clear that the provisions contained in Section 195 (I) (b) (ii) Cr. P.C. are not attracted in the case the presiding officer is alleged to have been signatory or is alleged to, as have committed an offence specified in section 191 (1) cb) (i) Cr. P.C. No. presiding officer can be expected to file a complaint against him even if he might have committed any offence specified in the aforesaid section. In view of this matter, the learned Magistrate committed no illegality when he under Sub-Section (2) of Section 245 Cr. P.C. discharged Shri Kanvriya. 8. But the controversy does not and here and the question is as to whether in a case where the allegen forgery by the then presiding officer Shri Kanvriya was committed in the year 1968, whether in the year 1987 this Court should send the case back for trial to the Court more so when Shri Kanvriya retired from services many years ago, some time in the year 1917. It may also be stated here that against the order made by Shri Kanvriya under section 133 Cr. P.C. on 28th August, 1968 as well as made under section 482 Cr. P.C. a revision petition was filed before the Session Judge Shri M.L. Jain, Jaipur District, Jaipur. In that 'revision petition No. 94/68 so far as the conditional order made under section 133 Cr, P.C. is concerned, which as already said earlier, was made on 28th August, 1968, the learned Sessions Judge found it to be in accordance with law. P.C. a revision petition was filed before the Session Judge Shri M.L. Jain, Jaipur District, Jaipur. In that 'revision petition No. 94/68 so far as the conditional order made under section 133 Cr, P.C. is concerned, which as already said earlier, was made on 28th August, 1968, the learned Sessions Judge found it to be in accordance with law. The learned Judge "said so far as the conditional order stands, I do not find any illegality in the order made by the learned Magistrate." I need not to go into the question as to whether charge against Shri Kanvriya that he forged order-sheet or any site inspection note is correct or not. But with the decision of the learned Sessions Judge putting its seal in the order made by Shri Kanvriya under section 133 Cr. P.C., 1 am not inclined to dismiss the revision petition and send the case back for trial after the lapse of 19 years of the allegedly committed by Shri Kanvriya who retired from the services in the year 1977. The powers of of this Court under section 397 Cr. P.C. i.e. powers of revision are discretionary and the Court has to take and should take the circumstances of the case including the fact as to when the offence is alleged to have been committed, into consideration. 9. Consequently, though I do not agree with the learned Magistrate that prohibition contained under section 195 (i) (b) (ii) Cr. P.C. is applicable but for reasons stated earlier, I do not want to interfere in the exercise of lower revisional powers. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******