JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., by the accused petitioner is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated May 16, 1987. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that non-petitioner Mohammed Saddique filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5 Jaipur City. The allegation against the petitioner was that in a Civil Suit filed by Vinod Behari against the petitioner, the petitioner filed photostat copies of two documents; (a) a rent-note dated May 18, 1947; and (b) a receipt for Rs 3001 /--dated December 27, 1952 According to the complainant both the above documents had forged signature of one Durga Sahai. The suit filed by Vinod Behari was withdrawn on September 17,1984. The case of the complainant was that he had purchased the property in question from Vinod Behari and the forged documents were affecting the complainant as he had become the owner of the shop in question after its purchase from Vinod Behari, Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 465, 467 and 471 IPC. 3. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate filed a revision. Learned Additional District and Sections Judge No 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, held that so far as offences under Section 465, 467 IPC was concerned no cognizance could be taken against the petitioner unless it was proved that the false documents were made by the petitioner. It was however, observed that so far as the question of offences under Sections 465 and 467 IPC was concerned, it was made clear that in case the complaint desires then he could move an application for taking specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused and could get the same compared with the alleged forged documents with a handwriting expert, and fresh action could be taken against the accused on the basis of result of such application. Learned Additional Sections Judge No. 2 Jaipur City. Jaipur dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner with regard to taking cognizance so far as offence under Section 471 IPC was concerned. 4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Additional Session Judge, the accused had filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr P.C. 5. Mr Dhankar. Learned Additional Sections Judge No. 2 Jaipur City. Jaipur dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner with regard to taking cognizance so far as offence under Section 471 IPC was concerned. 4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Additional Session Judge, the accused had filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr P.C. 5. Mr Dhankar. appearing for the accused petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was only challenging the order of the learned Additional Session Judge in respect of Section 471 IPC. Mr. Dhankar submitted that even if the case as set out in the complaint, is taken at its face value no offence under Section 471 IPC can be said to have been disclosed against the petitioner, It has been submitted that there was no material on record to hold that the petitioner filed the alleged documents in the court knowing that these documents were forged That being so, ingredients of any offence under Section 471 IPC have been proved against him- It was further argued by Mr. Dhankar that under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure no court was competent to take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 471 IPC when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court except on the complaint in writing of that Court. Thus, it was argued (hat in the absence of any complaint in writing of the Civil Court in which the alleged document were produced, no cognizance could have been taken in the case for offence under Section 471 IPC. It was also argued that the suit filed by Vined Behari in which the alleged document were produced has already been withdrawn and the present complainant who is the the transferee of the property, can raise no grievance for lodging a complaint against the petitioner. It was also submitted that admittedly documents in which the forgeries are alleged to have been committed have neither been produced nor given in evidence in the Civil Court and as such no offence is made out under Section 47 IPC. 6. On the other hand, Mr. It was also submitted that admittedly documents in which the forgeries are alleged to have been committed have neither been produced nor given in evidence in the Civil Court and as such no offence is made out under Section 47 IPC. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the forgeries are alleged to have been committed in document before filing the same in the court and as such Section 195, Cr P.C. does not come into operation. It has been further submitted that there is no bar under any provision of Cr. P.C. that a complaint cannot be filed by the petitioner for an offence under S. 471 IPC in the facts and circumstance of the present nature. It was further argued that when the copies of the forged document are produced by a person in the court, then such court is unable to decide the question of its genuineness because they are copies and not the original documents. Thus, when the Civil Court where photostat copies were filed, was itself not in a position to decide about the genuineness of the documents, the restriction put by Section 195 Cr. P.C. has no application. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on Sanmukh Singh and another v. The king, 1950 P.C. 31 , Budha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1963 (2) Cr. LJ 698 . Legal Remembrancer of Govt, of West Bengal v. Haridas Mundra, AIR 1976 SC 2225 and Harbans Singh and other v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 Punjab Haryana 19 . 7. I do not consider it proper to make any comment on the merits of the case as it may prejudice the trial of the case. So far as the legal objection raised by Mr. Dhankar. counsel for the petitioner (illegible) answered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Budhu Ram's case, 1963 (2) Cr. LJ 698 (supra). In the above case it was clearly held as under : "It will be seen on a plain grammatical construction of this provision that a complaint by the court is required where the offence is of forging or of using as genuine any document which is known or believed to be a forged document is produced or given in evidence in court. It is clear therefore that it is only when the forged document is produced in Court that a complaint by the Courts required. Where, however, what is produced before the court is not the forged document itself, S. 195 (1) (c) will not apply on its terms. The reason for this, as stated by the Judicial Committee, "is the practical common sense of the matter, for the court before which a copy of a document is produced is not really in a position to express any opinion on the genuineness of the original." Therefore, even if the Assistant Settlement Officer is assumed to be a court within the meaning of S 195(l)(c) no complaint was necessary because the forged document itself was not produced before the Assistant Settlement Officer in this case but only a copy thereof." The Supreme Court in the above case had placed reliance on the Privy Council case of Sanmukh Singh, 1950 P.C. 31 (supra). In view of the above authoritative decision given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court the objection of Section 195(1 )(b) (ii) Cr. P.C. raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance. 8. Section 190(1) clearly provides that a cognizance of any offence can be taken upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence In view of these circumstances it cannot be said that the learned trial Court was not competent to take cognizance on the basis of a complaint filed by Mohammed Saddique, who was only a transferee of the property in question, 9. In the result I find no force in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that none of the observations made above shall, in any manner, prejudice the case of the petitioner in raising any objection on merits at the stage of framing charge or at any other stage of the trial of the case.Petition rejected. *******