Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This Cr. revision is directed against the Judgment of the appellate court passed by Shri Dharnidhar Jha, 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharsa on 30th July, 1998 in Cr. Appeal no. 4 of 1995 by which he confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate; Saharsa, in G.R. Case No. 778 of! 1987/Tr. No. 368/95. The sole revisionist was convicted under section 474 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21/2 years by the court of the S.D.J.M. Saharsa and this order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in the appellate court. 2. The relevant facts are that the sole appellant was prosecuted for forging a Judgment passed in F.A.No. 429 and 430 of 1962 and this allegedly forged Judgment filed in a Survey Appeal No. 50/86 pending before the Charge Officer- cum-Town Survey Superintendent, where there was an appeal against the inferior Survey Officer. On the basis of this forged Judgment of the High Court, the revisionist allegedly obtained a favourable Judgment. There was an information given to the police by O.P.no. 2 o! this revision, Surendra Mahaseth, son of Lux- man Mahaseth, who was the respondent in appeal for Survey Superintendent on the basis of this information to the police the concerned G.R.Case was instituted wherein after trial the revisionist was con- vicled and sentenced. 3. More relevant facts, as disclosed by the memo of revision, which are almost admitted facts are to the effect that one Ramautar Mahaseth had three other brothers, namely, Baldeo, Anand and Lax- man and one sister, Kaushalya Devi. Anant Mahaseth had one daughter-in-law, Lilawati Devi and Laxman Mahaseth had a son Narendra Mahaseth. On the ageing of Lai Ji Mahaseth, their father, Ramautar Mahaseth took up the management of his family which was dealing in satta (speculation) and during the course of the business Ramautar purchased several properties in his own name but for the benefit of joint family. However, satta business normally has occasionally slums and so, Ramautar Mahaseth incured loans from one Bhajan Lai Pugalia. This Bhajan Lai filed a Money Suit No. 4196 of 1946 before the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in its original civil jurisdiction and obtained a decree dated 9.7.56. This decree was sent to Sub-Judge, Mad- hepura for examination where an Execution Case No. 53 of 1960 was registered. This Bhajan Lai filed a Money Suit No. 4196 of 1946 before the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in its original civil jurisdiction and obtained a decree dated 9.7.56. This decree was sent to Sub-Judge, Mad- hepura for examination where an Execution Case No. 53 of 1960 was registered. Certain properties standing in the name of Ramautar Mahaseth were auction sold on 15th January, 1960 and the same were purchased by decree holder Pugalia himself. However, before confirmation there were some Misc. cases regarding this auction sale and this litigation was fought up to the Hon ble Court. But, subsequently, the sale was confirmed by the executing court and then Bhajan Lai Pugalia sold the properties purchased by him to the revisionist, Shiv Shankar Prasad Mahaseth @ Shiv Shankar Mahaseth. The properties purchased by the revisionist consisted of Plot Nos. 1208, 1209 and 1210 having a total area of 3 kathas 8 dhurs. However, this property was subject matter of Title Parttioni Suit No. 170/54 among the co-sharers of Ramautar Mahaseth. This suit was decreed and then there was an appeal before the Hon ble court preferred by Lilawati Devi and one Narendra Mahaseth who claimed certain properties exclusively belonging to them which could not be the subject matter of partition. The Hon ble Court in the concerned Appeals No. 429 and 430 of 1962 modified the Judgment of Sub-Judge Darbhanga and held that the properties exclusively claimed by Narendra Mahaseth and Lilawati Devi belonging to them and the same could not form part of the subject matter of the concerned partition suit before the Sub- Judge, Darbhanga. 4. In the prosecution case, launched against the revisionist, it was alleged that he obtained certified copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon ble High Court, Patna, from Darbhanga Judship and got certain words and lines in the orignal Judgment altered in order to benefit himself and on the basis of this forged judgment obtained a favourable order from the survey appellate court. During course of the trial before the S.D.J.M. this alleged forged judgment (Ext.2) was produced and the original Judgment (Exts. 5 and 7) obtained from the High Court by the opposite party of this revision, Surendra Mahaseth, were also filed. During course of the trial before the S.D.J.M. this alleged forged judgment (Ext.2) was produced and the original Judgment (Exts. 5 and 7) obtained from the High Court by the opposite party of this revision, Surendra Mahaseth, were also filed. The trial court compared the allegedly forged copy of the Judgment and the copy of the original Judgment, came to the conclusion that the revisionist had got inserted the name of Bhajan Lai Pugalia and Lilawati Devi instead of others wherever these words occurred in the original Judgment and on the basis of these alterations claimed that Bhajan Lai Pugalia was party to the suit and he obtained decree in his favour, so far the property exclusively by Lilawati and Narendra Mahaseth was concerned. i have used the alterations allegedly done only in a summary way whereas actually the Judgment of the court of the S.D.J.M. and the same of the appellate court from the some more alterations and interpolation amounting to forgery. 5. Now I shall refer to the argument of the revisionists lawyer regarding the alleged illegalities in the order of conviction recorded by the trial court and maintained by the appellate court. Revisionists lawyer submitted before me that in the appeal before the survey authorities there was a person holding power of attorney and conducting the appeal and there were certain more persons making the pairwi in the aforesaid survey appeal. His attorney was Rama Kant Jha and the persons taking steps were Ram Chandra Choudhary and Umesh Chaudhary. So, if at all, any forged judgment was filed in the survey appeal, the revisionist was not liable for the offence committed by producing that document nor he was going to benefit from the same. In this connection, I find that the appellate court, Additional Sessions Judge held that list of documents filed by this revisionist indicated that concerned forged Judgment of the Hon ble Court was one of those documents. Moreover, it is quite obvious that, if at all any judgment allegedly forged was filed before the survey appellate authority it cannot be deemed that revisionist had no knowledge of this forged judgment or that his attorney had obtained this forged Judgment and had filed it just to benefit himself. There is no case of revisionist that his attorney or his pairvikars were to benefit from the Judgment of the Survey appellate court. There is no case of revisionist that his attorney or his pairvikars were to benefit from the Judgment of the Survey appellate court. So, in all circumstances, the revisionist could not escape from the liability of filing a forged document before the survey appeiellte authourl 6. Now so far the plea that revisionist did not and could not derive any benefit from the alleged forged Judgment, it was submitted before that Lilawati Devi was claiming lands different from those plase chased by the revisionist, and thereto insertion of the name of Pugalia in place of Lilawati, no benefit was going to accrue to the revisionist. But, judgment of the appellate court and that ol the trial court shows that the name of even Narendra Mahaseth was changed and in his place Pugalias name was inserted. So, it is to be noted that in the memo ol revision certain facts have been suppressed. Moreover, so far the actual benefit to be derived from the forged Judgment of the Hon ble Court is concerned, admittedly, the revisionist had obtained this benefit by having a favourable Judgment from the Survey Appellate authority. So, of course, he derived benefits from this forged judgment. In the survey conducted by the Notified Area] Committee, Luxman Mahaseth contested the claim of the revisionist because in the partition suit before the Sub Judge Darbhanga, relevant plot nos. 1208 ana 1210 were allotted to him. The revisionist lost this case before the inferior Survey Authorities, but from the appellate court of survey obtained a favourable Judgment on the basis of the forged Judgment in the Hon ble High Court. So, of course, he benefited from the forged Judgment of the High Court. So, the argument advanced by the revisionists lawyer, in this connection, is besides the point and without any substance. 7. Another legal question of law was raised before me about the validity of the prosecution and trial before the S.D.J.M., Saharsa. This was to the effect that the prosecution for the alleged production of the alleged forged Judgment should have been initiated by the Survey authority and brought by a private complainant before the police filed by Surendra Mahaseth. Reference to Section 195 Cr. P.C. was made by the revisionists lawyer and this question was raised before the Additional Sessions Judge as well. Reference to Section 195 Cr. P.C. was made by the revisionists lawyer and this question was raised before the Additional Sessions Judge as well. However, I find that under section 195 (1) (a) or (b), there is no mention of section 474 I.P.C. So, I am of the opinion that for an offence under section 474 I.P.C there is no necessity for filing a complaint by the concerned court whether forged document was filed in order to validate prosecution and cognizance. The appellate court had held that since the forgery was committed before filing of the concerned Judgment before the survey authority, the offence committed went beyond the pale of section 195 Cr. P.C. In this connection, I am to add further that section 174 (sic 474 ?) penalises the offence committed by forging the document intending it to be used as genuine. So, benefit or no benefit, the offence is complete, the moment, any forgery is committed with any genuine document by making interpolations or change in original contents intending that the forged document may be used as genuine. In such circumstance, the offence under section 174 (sic 474 ?) I.P.C. would be complete even before it is filed before any authority where it is used as a genuine document and any benefit is conferred upon the person producing the same in the aforesaid circumstance. I am of the considered opinion that for launching a prosecution under section 474 I.P.C. there was no necessity for the concerned survey authority to file complaint nor the prosecution of the revisionist at the instance of Surendra Mahaseth was invalid. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion of the entire aspects of the case, I do not think the order of conviction recorded by the trial court and the same is confirmed by the appellate court deserves any interference by this Court. Hence, this revision is dismissed.