JUDGMENT 1. - The present misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 1 6.10.1995 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 22/1995. By this order the Special Judge has upheld the order dated 9.3.1995 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 46/1995. 2. The State of Rajasthan has come up in this misc. petition alleging that a charge sheet was presented against the accused respondents. The matter was considered for framing of charge. The learned Magistrate in his wisdom discharged the accused persons. On revision the revisional court upheld the order of the learned trial court discharging the accused persons. 3. Facts of the case are that an agreement to sale was entered into in between Naveen Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as the Samiti) and Jai Marwar Company Pvt. Ltd. Jodhpur (called hereinafter `the Company'). The Company agreed to sell a piece of land to the Samiti. The case of the prosecution is that the agreement to sale which purports to have been executed on 2.10.1974 was not in fact executed on that day but it was executed some where in the year 1980-81. It became necessary when the Company felt that the land held by it may be acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (referred to hereinafter as `the Act'). Therefore, this fictitious document was created in the year 1980-81 to defeat the provisions is of the Act. 4. To create such a document in the year 1980-81 the stamp paper used was purchased by one Naveen Ram Dangi son of Shri Udaram Meghwal resident of C Scheme, Jaipur. This stamp was purchased in the name of Shri Dangi on 21.1.1974. The parties to the agreement i.e. the Company and the Samiti were not the purchasers of the stamp Since the stamp was available with Shri Naveen Ram Dangi, therefore. he was shown to have interest in the deal. His name was incorporated in the agreement alleging that Shri Naveen Ram Dangi will get 5% commission. 5. The allegation of the prosecution is that in fact, the stamps were not purchased for the agreement in question. he was shown to have interest in the deal. His name was incorporated in the agreement alleging that Shri Naveen Ram Dangi will get 5% commission. 5. The allegation of the prosecution is that in fact, the stamps were not purchased for the agreement in question. Since this paper purchased by Shri Naveen Ram Dangi was handy in 1980 the agreement in question was created to defraud the State and such act is a criminal act. 6. According to the allegations in the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses the recitals of the agreement are falsified inasmuch as that the Company in its meeting dated 1.8.1974 never decided to sell out it to the Samiti and the Samiti had not paid a sum of Rs. 10,101/- in cash to the Company. 7. According to the document annexed with the charge- sheet, the Secretary of the Samiti Ram Das who continued as Secretary of the Samiti up to 1979 has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. that no such deal was ever authorised by the Samiti or undertaken. Such is also the statements of other witnesses 8. The prosecution case is further that the audit reports of the Company and its auditor's report filed for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 show that no transaction of land has taken place. That being the position if the Company had not transacted any business during the aforesaid period then obviously the document which has come into existence in the year 1980-81 purporting to be a document of the year 1974 was designed to defraud the State. 9. Further witness of the prosecution Shri Ram Das in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. deposed that no transaction as contained in the alleged agreement to sell was ever undertaken by the Samiti. The Samiti was earlier constituted as Shri Thakkar Bapa Grah Nirman Anusuchit Jati va Jan Jati Sahakari Samiti which was subsequently renamed as Naveen Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti. It has members and to become operational some members. were added in the year 1974 in which Kundanmal accused came in. However, no transaction of land was ever done and no amount was ever paid. Until 1979 no document came into being with the signatures of this witness until this witness remained as Secretary of the Samiti i.e. until 1979. 10. Witness Madan Singh was the Chairman of the Samiti. However, no transaction of land was ever done and no amount was ever paid. Until 1979 no document came into being with the signatures of this witness until this witness remained as Secretary of the Samiti i.e. until 1979. 10. Witness Madan Singh was the Chairman of the Samiti. He in his statement has stated that he continued as the Chairman of the Samiti until 1979. Thereafter he resigned because the Samiti has not done any work. Therefore, the Samiti was dissolved and he resigned in 1979. Had there been any transaction of land in the year 1974 he would not have resigned as the Chairman of the Samiti. The prosecution has contended that those who remained as Chairman and Secretary of the Samiti till 1979 had clearly deposed that there was no transaction of land until 1979. Such document came into being only thereafter. 11. The Registrar of the Cooperative Societies Shri Suresh Charan has clearly stated that it was a fabrication. The audit reports were produced by the department for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 which clearly state that no land was purchased by the Samiti in last 10 years and, therefore, the stand of the prosecution was vindicated. 12. The trial court in its judgment has observed that the alleged original agreement has not been produced before the court because the same has been produced in the other litigation which had gone up to the Supreme Court and, therefore, if the document which is alleged to be a fabricated document has been produced in court proceedings then in view of the prohibition contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. no proceedings can be taken in this Court. 13. Apart from the above technical arguments, on merits, the trial court has observed that the document cannot be considered to be a fabricated document. The argument of the prosecution has been repelled by saying that the amount of Rs. 10,101/- is too small an amount to be shown in the income tax returns and further it cannot be said to be an income. Only profit is to be shown in the income tax return. Therefore, it was not shown in the income tax return of the Company simply because it was an agreement to sale and the title of the land had not been transferred. Only profit is to be shown in the income tax return. Therefore, it was not shown in the income tax return of the Company simply because it was an agreement to sale and the title of the land had not been transferred. Therefore, the Company had not shown it in the income tax return as the title of the land had not been transferred and it was only an agreement to sale. 14. The learned Magistrate has brushed aside the argument that Rs. 10,000/- was required to be paid by cheque by saying that on this ground the agreement cannot be said to be a fabrication. The learned trial Court has found that the agreement was entered into on behalf of the Samiti by Kundanmal on a stamp. The trial Court had though noted that, before the competent authority under the Act, form No. V was filed to seek exemption. But then the decision of the competent authority has not been affected by production of agreement to sale, therefore, it cannot be said that it was created for being used for illegal purposes. The trial court has also observed that it is not established that the agreement was intended to be misused. The trial court has relied on the statement of one Avinash recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who has stated that he has not seen any record of the Samiti being destroyed because he has seen that the record was old one. 15. The revisional court in its order held that the finding of the trial court is correct, that no offence as contained in Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 B I.P.C. can be proceeded when the document is produced in the court and so protection under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is absolute. The revisional court has further observed that even if an application was moved by Kundanmal before the competent authority on 15.5.1981 use the agreement for seeking exemption then it cannot be said that any offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed. 16. Counsel for the State arguing the misc. petition has urged that both the courts below have gone wrong in assuming that the protection of provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is available to the accused persons because the Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed. 16. Counsel for the State arguing the misc. petition has urged that both the courts below have gone wrong in assuming that the protection of provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is available to the accused persons because the Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 1998 Cr.L.R. (SC) 159 has held as under : "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. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal." 17. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the is forgery was committed before the document was produced in the court and, therefore, the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the case of the accused persons. The State has further retied upon a case decided by this Court in Gulshan Ali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2000 (1) R.Cr.D. 375 (Raj.) wherein this Court has observed as 20 under : "(7) It is obvious that the view taken in the Gopalkrishna v. D. Raja Reddy (Supra) relied on by Mr. Vyas was not approved by their lordships. The legal position thus is that the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(iii) Cr.P.C. does not apply, if the forgery was committed before the document was produced in the Court. There is, therefore, no merit in the contention of Mr. Vyas that cognizance of the offence could not be taken on the basis of the challan filed in the case." 18. Thus, the benefit given to the accused persons under the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not available. 19. Further the findings of the trial court are in contravention of the record. The Secretary and Chairman of the Society who remained as such until 1979 had not made any deal and Kundanmal was not authorised to sign on behalf of the Samiti and until 1979 he was not a functionary of the Society. Maybe that he had acquired membership of the Samiti, but the same is also a doubtful proposition. The audit reports of the Samiti for the year 1974-75 and 1975-76 clearly show that the Samiti had not undertaken any transaction. 20. Maybe that he had acquired membership of the Samiti, but the same is also a doubtful proposition. The audit reports of the Samiti for the year 1974-75 and 1975-76 clearly show that the Samiti had not undertaken any transaction. 20. Only on the basis of statement of one witness Avinash, the other witnesses who have clearly implicated the accused respondents cannot be discarded. More particularly when his statement is not to the effect as to when the transaction had taken place. 21. It has been further contended on behalf of the State that what is startling to note is that the stamp paper was not purchased either by the Company or the Samiti. The stamp paper was purchased by Shri Naveen Ram Dangi who is a third party. On a stamp purchased by a third party the agreement to sale is undertaken by two incorporated bodies then prima facie it appears that it is not a genuine document. There was nothing to prevent the Samiti or the Company to purchase the stamp if they legally wanted to create an agreement. The stamp paper purchased in the name of a third so party cannot be used. Further the audit reports of the Company show that the Company had not sold out any of its land in the year 1974. Such evidence being available on the record, the trial court and the revisional court were not within their rights to discharge the accused persons because at the stage of charge critical examination of the evidence is not made. In this view of the matter the approach of the courts below is wrong. It is a fit case where this court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings in question. 22. Written arguments have been submitted on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and an objection has been taken that the petitioner has filed this misc. petition in the garb of second revision against the order of the first revision. It has also been contended that initially the police submitted a negative report but subsequently produced the challan against the respondent. The document in question was only an agreement to sale and not a sale. The respondents 1 and 2 cannot be linked as far as entry in the register of the Company are concerned. It has also been contended that initially the police submitted a negative report but subsequently produced the challan against the respondent. The document in question was only an agreement to sale and not a sale. The respondents 1 and 2 cannot be linked as far as entry in the register of the Company are concerned. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there is no iota of the evidence to connect the accused respondents with the crime and the learned trial court has rightly given the benefit of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. In the audit report finding has been given in favour of the accused persons. Therefore, nothing can be done against the respondent No. 1. 23. It has also been alleged and argued on behalf of the respondents that in view of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.PC. the trial court could not have proceeded and it had rightly denied the prosecution and refused to frame the charges. Further the prosecution earlier submitted a Final Report and subsequently filed the charge-sheet. Thus, it shows the tentativeness of the prosecution itself. In the absence of the document in question being available the prosecution could not be sustained. 24. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. As far as question regarding bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sachida Nand Singh (supra) has clearly observed that the bar is only effective if the purgery has been committed while the document was custodia ligus. 25. When the document was prepared there was no litigation. In the subsequent litigation the genuineness of the document has been questioned and in that background the document has been submitted before the court. That being the position in my humble opinion the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted. I draw support from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh's case (supra). This Court in Gulshan Ali (supra) has also held that such documents regarding which forgery was committed before the documents was presented before the court are not considered in the light of the provisions contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.PC. Thus, on this count the judgment of the trial court is not sustainable. 26. The trial court while considering the statement of Avinash has held that the prosecution is not sustainable. Thus, on this count the judgment of the trial court is not sustainable. 26. The trial court while considering the statement of Avinash has held that the prosecution is not sustainable. While considering the worth of the statement of Avinash the trial court has not seen the other evidence available on record. The statements of the Chairman of the Samiti Shri Madan Singh and Secretary of the Samiti Shri Ram Das and the audit reports of the Company give a different texture to the whole incident. That aspect of the matter has not been considered nor the merit of the statement of Shri Suresh Charan has been rightly understood by the trial court. The revisional court has also not dwelt on this aspect of the matter. Considering these lapses on the part of the courts below, this Court feels that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. is required to be exercised in the present case and consequently this Court feels that powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. should be exercised.The petition is allowed, the orders of the courts below are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to deal with the matter in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******