JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge cum Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 18.6.98 whereby she upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 4.4.98 rejecting the application of the petitioners under section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. 2. The relevant facts are that Karan Singh filed a complaint on 26.7.90 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur alleging that the petitioners have forged a will purported to have been executed by Smt. Bhoor Kanwar on 10.5.87 in their favour in respect of Khatedari land situate at Village-Guda. It was stated that Bhoor Kanwar who was his sister had already executed a will in favour of the complainant on 13.11.79. It was further stated that the complainant came to know about the forgery when on the death of Bhoor Kanwar she went to the Patwari for mutation in his name and the Patwari told him that Khuman Singh (Petitioner No. 1) had already filed a will dated 10.5.87 and the land has been entered in his name. It was prayed in the complaint that the petitioners be punished under section 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. This complaint was sent to Police Station Gogunda under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the petitioners. Thereupon the petitioners moved an application stating that the cognizance, taken by the Court was barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C. as the Court in which the forged will has been presented has not filed complaint. The Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 4.4.98 rejected the application of the petitioners. Their revision against the order also proved abortive. 3. The contention of Mr. Kumbhat was that once a forged document is produced in the court, cognizance of the offence can be taken only on the complaint of the court concerned because of Section 195 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on the case of Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh AIR 1996 SC 1592 . 4. 3. The contention of Mr. Kumbhat was that once a forged document is produced in the court, cognizance of the offence can be taken only on the complaint of the court concerned because of Section 195 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on the case of Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh AIR 1996 SC 1592 . 4. When his attention was drawn to the later decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1121 he submitted that the decision in the case of Surjit Singh (supra) has not considered by the Bench which decided the case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra) and, therefore, the decision in the case of Surjit Singh holds the field and the decision in the case of Sachida Nand Singh should be treated as per incurium. He canvassed that the rule of precedent is that where there is direct conflict between the two decisions of the Supreme Court by co-equal Benches, the High Court must follow the judgment of the earlier Bench. In support of his contention, he cited the cases of Amar Singh Yadav v. Shanti Devi AIR 1987 Patna 191 , Ganga Charan v. Civil Judge, Hapur AIR 1991 Allahabad 115 and Mamleshwar v. Kanhaiyalal AIR 1975 SC 907 . 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, tried to support the order of the courts below. 6. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration, the facts reveal that the complaint was filed by Karan Singh on 26.7.90 which was forwarded to the police, who gave the final report on 2.8.90, but the Court did not accept the final report and took cognizance against the accused vide order dated 28.7.92. In between the period the F.R. was given and the Court took cognizance, petitioner Khuman Singh filed a civil suit on the basis of the will dated 10.5.87. It is obvious that the document which is said to have been forged was executed much before the filing of the civil suit by the accused-petitioner on 4.8.90. The question for consideration is whether in such circumstances the bar of Section 195(1 )(b)(ii) is attracted. 7. It is obvious that the document which is said to have been forged was executed much before the filing of the civil suit by the accused-petitioner on 4.8.90. The question for consideration is whether in such circumstances the bar of Section 195(1 )(b)(ii) is attracted. 7. The direct authority on the point is the case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra) wherein a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has clearly held that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court. The Apex Court has observed that the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis. The observations of their lordships at para 23 of the report are reproduced hereunder- "The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 195(1 )(b)(ii) of the Code 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, admittedly the allegation are that the document was forged in 1987. The document for the first time was produced in the Court in the Civil Suit on 4.8.90. It is evident from the allegations that the forgery was committed before the production of the document in the Court. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it has to be held that the bar of Section 195(1 )(b)(ii) does not get attracted. 8. Coming to the case of Surjit Singh (supra) relied on by Mr. Kumbhat, it may be stated that this case was decided on the basis of the two earlier judgments of the Apex Court. The case was decided mainly on the point that only copy of the document was produced and not the original and hence bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not attracted. This had been the view of the Supreme Court in earlier cases also that if a copy is filed and not the original, the bar of Section 195(1)(b) is not attracted and that view has been endorsed in the case of Surjit Singh. 9. The basis of the contention of Mr. This had been the view of the Supreme Court in earlier cases also that if a copy is filed and not the original, the bar of Section 195(1)(b) is not attracted and that view has been endorsed in the case of Surjit Singh. 9. The basis of the contention of Mr. Kumbhat is para 11 of the report, which reads as under- "It would thus be clear that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document the foundation for forgery, if produced before the Court or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under section 195(1 )(b)(ii) gets attracted and the Criminal Court is prohibited to take cognizance of offence unless a complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed under section 340 of the Code by or on behalf of the Court. The object thereby is to preserve purity of the administration of justice and to allow the parties to adduce evidence in proof of certain documents without being compelled or intimidated to proceed with the judicial process. The bar of Section 195 is to take cognizance of the offence covered thereunder." On the aforesaid observations, it cannot be said there is definite pronouncement by the Apex Court that even if the document was forged prior to its production in the Court, the bar of Section 195(1 )(b)(ii) would be attracted. As a matter of fact in the case of Surjit Singh the Apex Court has not directly expressed any opinion on the point that though forgery is not committed while the document is in custody legis yet cognizance can be taken only on the complaint of the Court concerned. 10. In the case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra) it has been clearly held that if forgery is committed after the production of document in the court then only Section 195 is attracted. The case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra) directly decides the point that where the forgery of a document is committed prior to its production in the Court, the bar under section 195(1 )(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. does not get attracted. 11. The case of Surjit Singh (supra) was decided noticing the observations in the case of Gopalkrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy 1983(4) SCC 240 . 11. The case of Surjit Singh (supra) was decided noticing the observations in the case of Gopalkrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy 1983(4) SCC 240 . It has been observed by their lordships in the case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra) that the ratio in the case of Patel Laljibhai (supra.) does not support the conclusion reached in the case of Gopalkrishna Menon (supra). It is obvious that the observations in the case of Gopalkrishna Menon (supra) on which the decision of Surjit Singh (supra) was based have not been approved by the 3 Judge Bench in the case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra). 12. It is true that in the case of Scahida Nand Singh (supra) the case of Surjit Singh (supra) has not been considered but that would not make the decision of Sachida Nand Singh (supra) per incuriam. The argument of per-incuriam, as a matter of fact, is misconceived. Moreover, a reading of both the decisions in Surjit Singh and Sachida Nand Singh makes it clear that the decision in the case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra) is more elaborate and the controversy has been decided after considering all previous decisions on the point. 13. The cases relied on by Mr. Kumbhat on the rule of precedent lay down the principle that where there is a conflict between the two decisions of the equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the High Court must follow the judgment which stated the law more elaborately and accurately. The case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra) certainly states the law more elaborately. In that case, even-it has been considered that the effect of the view, other than the one taken by their Lordships, would lead to unsavoury consequences. To quote the words of their Lordships in the case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra) - "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 somebody else who can be influenced by him and thereby pre-empt the prosecution for the entire long period of pendency of that litigation. It is a settled proposition that if the language of a legislation is capable of more than one interpretation, the one which is capable of causing mischievous consequences should be averted." 14. In the instant case, as stated above, the forgery is said to have been committed on 10.5.87. Thereafter, the civil suit was filed on 4.8.90 by the accused himself. In my considered opinion, the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) does not come into play. 15. Consequently, there is no substance in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******