O. P. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the revisional judgment dated 29/09/1998 by District and Sessions Judge, Mau who has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Vijai Bahadur Pandey filed a criminal complaint against the present petitioners under Sections 463, 464, 467, 468, 420 and 379, I. P. C. It was alleged in the complaint that on 27/04/1981 the accused persons obtained the thumb impression of one Sheo Pujan Pandey on a piece of paper and a forged Will was fabricated by the accused persons. This forged Will, it is alleged, was produced by the accused persons in mutation proceedings and later on in a civil suit instituted in the year 1996. It was also alleged in the complaint that the Will was stolen from the record of Revenue Court by the accused persons. The complaint was filed in the Court on 11/08/1997. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate summoned the accused by his order dated 4/12/1997. An application was filed on behalf of the accused persons for recall of the order. By order dated 2/04/1998 the Magistrate deleted Section 379, I. P. C. and the rest of the order was confirmed. Being aggrieved against order dated 2/04/1998 the present petitioners filed a revision before the Court of Sessions inter alia on the ground that the prosecution for the offences under the above Sections is barred by the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. By the impugned order dated 29/09/1998 the learned Sessions Judge repelled this contention and dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri V. C. Tiwary learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manish Tiwary appearing for the petitioners and Sri J. S. Sengar learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. Learned A. G. A. has also been heard. ( 5 ) IN this Court the same contention has been repeated on behalf of the petitioners and it is argued that the prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 463, 464, 467 etc. is barred under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. Learned A. G. A. has also been heard. ( 5 ) IN this Court the same contention has been repeated on behalf of the petitioners and it is argued that the prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 463, 464, 467 etc. is barred under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakhpati v. Ram Lakhan, 1998 JIC 171 (All) and the case of Ram Khelawan v. State of U. P. , 1998 JIC 358 (All) : 1998 All LJ 802. ( 6 ) ON behalf of respondent No. 2 reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sacchidanand Singh v. State of Bihar, 1998 (3) ACC 466 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1121 ) (SC ). The case of Sacchidanand Singh is also reported in 1998 (1) JT 370 : AIR 1998 SC 1121 . ( 7 ) I have gone through the judgments cited at the bar and the case in hand is fully covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sacchidanand Singh v. State of Bihar (supra ). The Apex Court has taken the view that the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. does not apply to initiation of prosecution proceedings simply on the ground that the document concerned was produced in a Court though the act of forgery was perpetrated prior to its production in the Court. In paragraph 8 of the judgment the Apex Court has pointed out the unsavoury consequences which will ensue if a liberal construction is adopted. The observations in para 8 are as under in para 9 of AIR at page 1123; of AIR :"that apart it is difficult to interpret Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) as containing a bar against initiation of prosecution proceedings merely because the document concerned was produced in a Court albeit the act of forgery was perpetrated prior to its production in the Court. Any such construction is likely to ensue unsavoury consequences. Any such construction is likely to ensue unsavoury consequences. For instance, if rank forgery of a valuable document is detected and the forgerer is sure that he would imminently be embroiled in prosecution proceedings he can simply get that document produced in any long drawn litigation which was either instituted by himself or some body else who can be influenced by him and thereby pre-empt the prosecution for the entire long period of pendency of that litigation. "7a. In para 12 of the judgment following observations have been made in para 13; of AIR :"it would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the Court records. " ( 8 ) THE Apex Court has clearly held that the bar contained in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Cr. P. C. is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court. In the instant case the forged document is said to have been prepared in the year 1981 i. e. long before its production in mutation proceedings and in the civil suit. The bar created by S. 195 (1) (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. is applicable only to those cases where the document was forged while it was in custodia legis. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion, this writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.