Judgment ( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of the order dated 11-10-85 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh in Cr. Original Case No. 284/84 (State v. Narsing Das and Others) whereby the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner under Section 195 (b) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected and the case was ordered to be listed for hearing arguments for charge. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to this petition are that Police Station. Ratangarh submitted a charge sheet against the petitioners for the trial of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120-B I. P. C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 14-11-84. The petitioners submitted an application on 8-5-85 and raised an objection that the Court could not take cognizance on a challan submitted by the police after investigation on a report by the complainant Ramavtar s/o Inder Chand Agarwal, R/o Ratangarh because the alleged forged document i. e. the affidavit was produced in the proceedings for hearing of bail petition in the High Court. Therefore, unless a complaint is presented by the High Court, cognizance of the alleged offence in other words the petitioners contended that the cognizance of the offence a alleged against them is barred by the provisions contained in Section 195 (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. Learned Judicial Magistrate heard the Add. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons and recorded the impugned order in which it was held that the bar contained in Section 195 (b) (ii) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The allegations against the petitioners, according to the F. I. R. lodged on 22-8-84, are that in pursuance of the conspiracy petitioner Nand Lal obtained signatures of Inder Chand son of Lal Chand Dhanuka resident of Ratangarh on two blank papers in the evening of 11-8-84 saying that the papers are to be submitted to the Income-tax Department. Thereafter the brother of Nand Lal petitioner Deoki Nandan said that the blank papers signed by him could not serve the purpose and therefore he was asked to sign a stamp paper. Shri Inder Chand signed the blank stamp paper of Rs. 5/- having full faith on the petitioners. They also took his signatures at two places in a register. Thereafter the brother of Nand Lal petitioner Deoki Nandan said that the blank papers signed by him could not serve the purpose and therefore he was asked to sign a stamp paper. Shri Inder Chand signed the blank stamp paper of Rs. 5/- having full faith on the petitioners. They also took his signatures at two places in a register. Still further, the allegation is that the petitioners got forged an affidavit of Inder Chand complainant and in order to save their father Narsing Das and Shiv Ratan in a case initiated by Shri Devi Prasad. The complainant demanded the papers back and the petitioners admitted their mistake and promised to return the original stamp as well as two white papers. They also supplied a photostat copy of the affidavit. On this report the case was registered at Police Station, Ratangarh for the aforesaid offences was resulted in challan as stated above. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on bare reading of the First Information Report it is revealed that the alleged forged document i. e. the affidavit was made to be produced in the Court in order to save Narsing Das and Shiv Ratan. This alleged forged affidavit and certain other papers were produced in the High Court on 23-8-84 and a copy of the said documents was supplied to the learned Public Prosecutor on 21-8-84. After hearing the parties and on considering the documents the bail application was disposed of on 3-9-84. Therefore, the provisions of Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code are fully applicable in the present case. The learned Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance in the absence of proper complaint by the Court where the document was produced for consideration. The concerned Court can only decide whether any prosecution should be launched or not against the petitioners. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P. C. are not attracted to the facts of this case because the alleged forgery was not committed by the petitioners as party to the proceedings in the High Court. In view of this situation the police was competent to investigate the offences on the report of the complainant and to submit the charge-sheet and the Magistrate is fully empowered to take cognizance. In view of this situation the police was competent to investigate the offences on the report of the complainant and to submit the charge-sheet and the Magistrate is fully empowered to take cognizance. It is further contended that the complainant was not party to the proceedings of bail application heard and decided by the Honble High Court. It is urged that if private complaint or report is barred on the ground that the alleged forged document has been produced in the Court then in every case of making a forged document the accused will after making forgery submit it in any proceeding instituted by him or any other person and take the protection of Section 195 Cr. P. C. debarring the complainant from seeking legal remedy against the accused for committing the act of forgery. According to the learned counsel for the complainant the bar under Section 195 is applicable only when the forged document is produced in the Court in a proceeding by a party to the proceedings and such forgery having been committed by that person after becoming the party to the proceedings. Reliance was placed on AIR 1974 SC 299 : (1974 Cri LJ 350); Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 2225 : (1976 Cri LJ 1732); Legal Remembrancer of Government of West Bengal v. Hari Das Mundra and 1994 Cri LJ 1389 : ( AIR 1994 SC 1549 ); Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited 1985 Cr LR 154 (Rajasthan); Kartar Singh v. The State of Raj, which is based on the decision Gopalkrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy, 1983 SCC (Cri) 822 : (1983 Cri LJ 1599) in support of his contention. ( 4 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. It is relevant to note here that the provision under Section 195 Cr. P. C. has been amended by Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant provision with which we are concerned here reads as under:"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence: - (1) No Court shall take (a) (i ). . . (b) (i ). . . Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence: - (1) No Court shall take (a) (i ). . . (b) (i ). . . (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 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 is any Court, or (iii ). . . (2) to (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 5 ) BEFORE amendment i. e. in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 the relevant provision reads as under : -"195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance - (a) and (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceedings in any Courts in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. ( 6 ) IN Mohan Lal v. State of Raj (supra) and Legal Remembrancer of West Bengal v. Hari Das (supra) the provisions under Section 195 (c) under the old Code were considered and it was held that the offence should be alleged to have been committed by the party to the proceedings in his character as such party i. e. after having become a party to the proceedings. But after amendment of the said provision, the legal position has completely changed and we have to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor keeping in view the amended provision in this regard under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which the words "by a party to any proceedings in any Court" have been omitted. The effect of amendment of the aforesaid provision is that if a document, the foundation for forgery, is produced before the Court or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. gets attracted and the Criminal Court is prohibited to take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein unless a complaint is lodged on behalf of the Court as per the procedure prescribed under Section 340 Cr. P. C. It is not essential that the alleged offences must be committed by a party to the proceedings in his character as such party or that the offence must be committed by him after becoming a party to the proceedings. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the learned counsel for the complainant that a private complaint is maintainable for committing an offence of forgery prior to the institution of the proceedings or becoming a party to the proceedings is not tenable in view of the amended provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. The above contention could be accepted on the premises of the aforesaid provision under Section 195 Cr. P. C. as it stood before amendment. After amendment of the aforesaid provision the prohibition contained in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) is against taking cognizance in respect of a document which has been produced or given in evidence in the proceedings of the Court irrespective of the fact when the offence was committed. The purpose and object of creating the bar against cognizance on private complaint of such offences mentioned in Section 195 is to ensure that a person who has produced the document in the proceedings of the Court while giving the evidence is not harassed by vexatious or baseless prosecution. Another purpose is to avoid conflict in the findings of the Court in which the alleged forged document is produced and the criminal Courts dealing with the private complaint. Therefore, if a document is produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court and an offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of that document then it has been left to the opinion of the Court admitting the document in evidence to arrive at a finding to file a complaint or not for the alleged offence in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 340 Cr. P. C. The bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it is not relevant at what point of time the forgery was committed. The bar of taking cognizance under the aforesaid Section is applicable as soon as a document is produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in the Court and an allegation of forgery is made in respect of such document. The protection for private complaint to the party producing or giving in evidence any document in a proceeding of the Court has beep given with the object to participate in the judicial process without any threat of prosecution except on a complaint by the Court. Therefore, the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) is attracted to all the documents produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court irrespective of the time when the document was prepared or executed. It is only the Court in which the document is produced or a Court to which that Court is a subordinate can only make complaint if it is expedient in the interest of justice after recording a finding to that effect as required under Section 340 Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, I am clearly of the view that the cases cited by the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor are of no assistance to them. In the instant case the F. I. R. and the papers under investigation would show that the alleged offence of forgery committed by the petitioner is in respect of a document which has been produced in the proceedings of bail application in the High Court. The hearing of the bail application in the High Court in my view is "a proceeding in any Court" as envisaged under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. I am clearly of the view that the embargo on taking cognizance under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) gets attracted in the present case and the learned Judicial Magistrate is prohibited to take cognizance without there being a complaint in writing by the concerned Court. ( 8 ) IN Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (supra) the offence was committed before the start of the proceedings and a complaint was also filed long before the new Code came into force. ( 8 ) IN Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (supra) the offence was committed before the start of the proceedings and a complaint was also filed long before the new Code came into force. But the charge-sheet was filed in 1975 after coming into force of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 i. e. the amended provision of Section 195 (1) (b) and it was contended that this provision was attracted and a complaint was necessary to be filed by the Court because the alleged offence of forgery was committed in respect of document produced or given in evidence in the pending proceedings. It was urged that the charge-sheet was filed in 1975 and hence the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P. C. will apply. The contention was repelled that no complaint was necessary by the Court concerned either in the old Code or in the new Code because the offences were committed before the start of the proceedings and the complaint had already been filed long before the new Code came into force and in the circumstances of the case provisions under the old Code were applicable. The provisions of new Code will not apply merely because the charge-sheet was submitted in 1975. But in the instant case the provisions of Section 195 of the new Code i. e. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would clearly apply and the complaint by the concerned Court is necessary in the absence of which the learned Magistrate is prohibited to take cognizance of the offence of forgery. In view of the foregoing discussion I am of the opinion that the impugned order of taking cognizance against the petitioners is against the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. and deserves to be set aside to the extent of taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 467, 468 I. P. C. The offences under Sections 420 and 120-B I. P. C. are separate and distinct offences and not barred by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. and to the extent of taking of cognizance for these offences the impugned order is upheld. ( 9 ) IN the result, the petition is hereby partly accepted. The impugned order dated 11-10-85 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh is partly set aside and the proceedings of Cr. P. C. and to the extent of taking of cognizance for these offences the impugned order is upheld. ( 9 ) IN the result, the petition is hereby partly accepted. The impugned order dated 11-10-85 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh is partly set aside and the proceedings of Cr. Original Case No. 284/84 on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the Police Station, Ratangarh to the extent of taking cognizance under Sections 467, 468 I. P. C. are quashed, but the cognizance taken and the proceedings for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B I. P. C. are upheld. The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. Petition partly allowed.