Judgment 1. Nobody appears on repeated calls to argue this appeal. When the matter was taken up for hearing at the time of admissiion itself. 2. Mr. S.N. Prasad. APP appears on behalf of respondent no. 1, the State of Bihar and Mr. Shashi Nath Thakur appears for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 3. Perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. This appeal is against the order dated 28th May, 2007 of the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga as passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26 of 1988 wherey the learned Sessions Judge refused to take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 340 read with Sec. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as prayed by the appellant petitioner Amrendra Kumar Sinha under the petition dated 7th June, 1988. 5. The appellant-petitioner Amrendra Kumar Sinha filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge under said Cr. Misc. No. 26 of 1988 alleging therein that in Cr. Revn. No. 453 of 1981 before the learned Sessions Judge, Vakalatnama forging the signature of Sri Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate (respondent no. 4) was filed by Sri Baidya Nath Jha, Advocate (respondent no. 2) who allegedly had forged the signature. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has noticed in the impugned order that Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate had appeared before the court and he accepted that the questioned, signatures were his signatures. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has also considered in his order that the appellant-petitioner had also filed a petition before the disciplinary authority of Bihar State Bar Council but it was dismissed by the disciplinary Committee and that the dismissal was further confirmed in appeal by the Bar Council of India. 8. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has also considered in his order that the appellant-petitioner had also filed a petition before the disciplinary authority of Bihar State Bar Council but it was dismissed by the disciplinary Committee and that the dismissal was further confirmed in appeal by the Bar Council of India. 8. Referring the principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sachida Nand Singh V/s. The State of Bihar, 1998 3 PLJR 13 and Iqbal Singh V/s. Meenakshi Marwah, 2005 2 PLJR 236 submits that if forgery has been committed while the document was in custody of a Court then prosecution can be launched only upon a complaint by the Court, otherwise prosecution lies at the instance of any person and it is not correct to assume that any offence involving forgery of a document, if committed outside the precincts of the court and long before its production in the said court can affect administration of justice merely because that document later reached the court records and bar contained in Sec. 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. 9. The learned Sessions Judge considered that the questioned signature had been put before it was filed in the court, hence the court was not bound to file a complaint in the matter and the appellant-petitioner could file separate complaint, if he so liked. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the question signatures were admitted by person namely Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate as his own and that the matter was also moved by the appellant before the Bar Council of Bihar and also in appeal before the Bar Council of India but it was dismissed. 11. Thus on perusal of the materials on the record and on hearing the learned counsel for the respondents and upon discussions as above. I find no merit in this case. Hence it is dismissed.