Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as District Sub- Registrar, Bhagalpur and at present he is a practising Advocate of this Court. It appears Title Suit No.1 /85 was pending in the Court of Munsif, Banka. Two documents, which had been presented for registration at Registration Office, Bhagalpur were required to be exhibited in the title suit. The Munsif. Banka wrote a letter (Annexure-1) to the petitioner for sending registered documents on 4-2-1991. The documents called by the Munsif had been accepted for registration but the same had not been actually registered in terms of Sec. 60 of the Indian Registration Act. The petitioners, therefore, thought that the documents could not be sent and it was to be registered in accordance with law. He accordingly sent a letter - to the Munsif that since the documents called could not be treated to be registered document, he was unable to forward those documents. The petitioner, however, placed the matter before the Collector-cum-District Registrar for his direction in the matter. It may be mentioned that one of the documents summoned by the Munsif was refused to be registered and was returned to the executant. The District Registrar thought it proper to obtain the opinion of the local Government Pleader and accordingly the Government Pleader approved the opinion of the petitioner. A copy of the opinion of the Government Pleader was forwarded to the Munsif and A.G.P. Banka was directed to appear before the Munsif Unfortunately, the A.G.P. Banka could not appear before the Munsif and the Munsif filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Banka alleging that the petitioner by not sending the document had committed offence under Secs. 174, 175 and 188, I.P.C., A.C.J.M., Banka took cognizance and summoned the petitioner for trial under Secs. Banka alleging that the petitioner by not sending the document had committed offence under Secs. 174, 175 and 188, I.P.C., A.C.J.M., Banka took cognizance and summoned the petitioner for trial under Secs. 174, 175 and 188, I.P.C., Sec. 174, IPC reads as follows: "Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant- Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time or depart, from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to sixmonths, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both." Similarly, Sec. 175, IPC provides that whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document to any public servant, as such intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or if the document is to be produced or delivered upto Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to sixmonths, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 3 In the instant case neither Sec. 174 nor Sec. 188, IPC is applicable. The petitioner was not summoned to appear in person or by an agent pursuant to any summon or notice issued by the Munsif. The Munsif had only written letter to the petitioner to send certain documents, which for valid reasons could not be sent. The Munsif, who wanted the documents to be produced should have issued summons to the petitioner and not a letter of request. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner took all legal steps and. The Munsif had only written letter to the petitioner to send certain documents, which for valid reasons could not be sent. The Munsif, who wanted the documents to be produced should have issued summons to the petitioner and not a letter of request. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner took all legal steps and. sought opinion of the District Registrar, who in turn, obtained an opinion of the Government Pleader. The Government Pleader endorsed the opinion of the petitioner that the documents could not be sent unless it was registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any offence as it cannot be said that he omitted to produce the document. The prosecution of the petitioner on the complaint filed by the Munsif- Complainant is, therefore, misconceived and consequently the cognizance taken by the A.C.J.M. is bad in law. 4. This application is accordingly allowed and the order of cognizance impugned in this application is quashed.