JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revision is preferred against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam, in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 1984 setting aside the order dated 31-7-1984, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surada, in I.C.C. No. 7 of 1983 taking cognizance against the accused persons of the offences under Sections 419, 467 and 109, I.P.C. 2. The present Petitioner was the' complainant in I.C.C. No. 7 of 1983 and filed the complaint petition against five accused persons (the present opposite parties) alleging that they have forged a sale deed and produced the said sale deed in the mutation proceedings for getting the land mutated in favour of opposite party No. 1. On the basis of the complaint petition and the initial statement of the complainant, cognizance was taken against the accused persons under Sections 419, 467 and 109, I.P.C. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the provisions of Section 195(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure would not stand in the way of the maintainability of the complaint petition filed by the Petitioner and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge acted illegally in quashing the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance against the accused persons under Sections 419, 467 and 109, I.P.C. The scope of the present revision is confined to a consideration of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure. For convenience of ready reference the relevant provisions of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure are quoted below: 195 (1). No Court shall take cognizance (a) xx xx xx (b) (i) xx xx xx (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable u/s 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, 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, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in Sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (ii). except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) xx xx xx (3) In Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the term 'Court' means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this Section. 4. Relying on the above quoted provisions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the complaint petition filed by the Petitioner is maintainable on the following grounds: (1) Section 467, I.P.C. is not one of the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) Section 195(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable when the offence alleged is one u/s 419, I.P.C. Under Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Code of Criminal Procedure No Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463, I.P.C. except on the complaint in writing of that Court. The offence which is made punishable u/s 467, I.P.C. is in respect of the offence of forgery described in Section. 463, I.P.C. So, as held by the Supreme Court in Gopalakrishna Menon and Another Vs. D. Raja Reddy and Another once it is accepted that Section 463 defines forgery and Section 467, punishes forgery of a particular category, the provision in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure would immediately be attracted and on the basis that the offence punishable u/s 467 is an offence described in Section 463, in the absence of a complaint by the Court the prosecution would not be maintainable. 5. The object of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure is to minimise the possibility of needless harassment of litigants by rash, baseless or vexatious prosecutions at the instance of their opponents. (See Kedar Nath Sen Vs. Amulya Ratan Sanyal, ). In a case covered by Section 195(1)(b), the Court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. (See Santokh Singh Vs. Izhar Hussain and Another, ). Considering the object of the Section it necessarily follows that its operation is only confined to certain offences under the Indian Penal Code. (See Santokh Singh Vs. Izhar Hussain and Another, ). Considering the object of the Section it necessarily follows that its operation is only confined to certain offences under the Indian Penal Code. Where a complaint indicates that the accused is guilty only of the offence u/s 419, I.P.C, which is not one of the offences enlisted in Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, then in that case a complaint by the Court is not necessary. In the present case, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute that the offences under Sections 467 and 419, I.P.C. were committed in the course of the same transaction. In State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy and Another the Supreme Court held that in cases, where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary u/s 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under the Sub-section are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld. So in the facts of the present case, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have set aside that part of the order taking cognizance against the accused persons u/s 419, I.P.C. is devoid of merit. 6. In the result, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed