JUDGMENT : 1. - This is complainant's revision against the order dated 18.02.1991 discharging the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 of offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. 2. The petition was admitted on 19.04.1991. A report was made on 23.04.2002 about the missing of file. It has been reconstructed on the basis of available relevant records and documents. The original record from the trial Court has been summoned by the order of this court dated 3.09.2003. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that complainant- petitioner herein filed a private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran on 29.04.1988 that he owned a shop at the Bus Stand, Bar on the southern side. There was a plot of first accused Mangilal. He was threatened of forcible ejectment from the shop by the respondent Mangilal. Thus, he filed a civil suit seeking injunction against forcible eviction from the suit premises, which was registered as suit No. 4/88 Om Prakash v. Mangilal and Others. The trial Court granted temporary injunction to maintain the status quo with respect of the suit property as on 27.04.1988. Defendant Mangilal filed a written statement taking plea that premises was rented out to the petitioner. He also produced a photostat copy of the rent note. It is alleged that said rent note was forged and fabricated. Complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the S.H.O., Police Station, Raipur. Police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. During investigation original rent note was recovered from the accused respondent Mangilal. Document was sent for examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and the opinion of the handwriting expert was also obtained. Deputy Director (Documents) of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan opined that the disputed signature stamped, encircled and marked as Q1 is forged signature. Thus, police laid charge-sheet against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused respondents for the said offences by order dated 2.1.1991. Deputy Director (Documents) of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan opined that the disputed signature stamped, encircled and marked as Q1 is forged signature. Thus, police laid charge-sheet against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused respondents for the said offences by order dated 2.1.1991. Accused respondents filed an application on 12.1.1990 stating that the document in question has already been tendered in evidence in civil court, as such, the complaint with regard to the said document could be filed only by the concerned court in accordance with the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate allowed the application by the impugned order dated 18.02.1991 and discharged the accused respondents of the aforesaid charges. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as the original rent note was not produced before the civil court, the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not attracted. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 419. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused respondent that issue involved in the instant petition has been referred to the Larger Bench by the Apex Court in Balasubramaniam v. State, 2002(7) SCC 649 . In Balasubramaniam's case (supra), the Apex Court has noticed conflicting views expressed in its earlier decisions with respect to the document forged prior to filing thereof in the court. In my view, the question involved in the instant petition has not been referred to the Larger Bench. The Apex Court in Sushil Kumar's case (supra) relying on the judgment of three Judges Bench in Budha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1963(3) SCR 378 held, thus : "Since, the document alleged to have been forged was not in the present case produced in the court, the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code have no application." 7. In the instant case along with written statement, a photostat copy of the alleged forged rent note was filed in the civil suit on 27.4.1988. The original rent note was recovered during investigation on 20.5.1988. In the instant case along with written statement, a photostat copy of the alleged forged rent note was filed in the civil suit on 27.4.1988. The original rent note was recovered during investigation on 20.5.1988. Thus, it is clear that the original document has not been produced before the civil court either before or after filing of the complaint. Thus, the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code have no application to the instant case. The learned Magistrate has committed manifest error in discharging the accused respondents of the above referred offences. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 18.02.1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bar is set aside. Trial court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of this order. The record of the case be returned forthwith.Revision allowed. *******