Judgment : 1. This revision is preferred against Judgment dated 08-11-2006 in Crl.A.No.96/2004 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam whereunder judgment dated 02-08-2004 in C.C.No.520/2002 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (formerly V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam) was confirmed. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Law & Order Police Station filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging that revision petitioner produced a forged salary certificate along with identity card before VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka while standing as surety for an accused by name one P. Srinivasa Rao in Crime No.58/2002 of Gajuwaka Law & Order Police Station and the learned Magistrate forwarded accused along with forged salary certificate for investigation and the investigation revealed that accused committed offences under Sections 468 & 471 IPC. During trial, six witnesses are examined and 11 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found accused guilty for the offences under Sections 468 & 471 IPC and sentenced him to suffer two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-for the offence under Section 468 IPC, six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions and I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against accused. Now aggrieved by the judgments of both Courts, present revision is preferred. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Advocate for revision petitioner mainly contended that there is no complaint from the Presiding Officer of the Court as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C., therefore, the entire trial is vitiated. He submitted that even otherwise, the person who is expected to issue salary certificate of the employees is not examined to prove that the salary certificate produced by accused is not issued by the competent authority and the witness examined i.e., P.W.3 is nothing to do with the issue of salary certificate, but the trial Court treated P.W.3 as the issuing authority, which is a wrong finding. He further submitted that provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C and Section 340 Cr.P.C are not followed and the conviction cannot be sustained. He further submitted that provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C and Section 340 Cr.P.C are not followed and the conviction cannot be sustained. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that accused was sent to police station with official memorandum, which is marked as Ex.P1 and the evidence of hand writing expert would disclose that the certificate produced by accused is a false and forged document. He submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere. 5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the Judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct? 6. Point:- Here the revision petitioner is a driver working in APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Depot at relevant point of time. According to prosecution, P.W.1 was VIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka at relevant point of time. According to prosecution, on 02-03-2002, at about 3:00 P.M., the revision petitioner appeared before the Court of P.W.1 as surety for an accused in Crime No.58/2002 of Gajuwaka Law & Order Police Station and that P.W.1 suspected the genuineness of the salary certificate produced by accused and on that, he forwarded accused along with the salary certificate and identity card to S.H.O., Gajuwaka Law & Order Police through an official memo for investigation. Police registered crime on the basis of the official memo of P.W.1, investigated into and filed charge sheet. 7. Now the main contention of the revision petitioner is that procedure under Sections 195 & 340 Cr.P.C is not followed by P.W.1 and therefore, the charge sheet and trial thereon is not maintainable and has to be held as illegal. For convenience and better appreciation, it is necessary to refer to these two provisions, which reads as follows:- “195. 7. Now the main contention of the revision petitioner is that procedure under Sections 195 & 340 Cr.P.C is not followed by P.W.1 and therefore, the charge sheet and trial thereon is not maintainable and has to be held as illegal. For convenience and better appreciation, it is necessary to refer to these two provisions, which reads as follows:- “195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence:- (1) No Court shall take cognizance:- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub- section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), the term" Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub- section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate: 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195:-. (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,- (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub- section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub- section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub- section (4) of section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court. (4) In this section," Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195.” 8. As seen from the Section 195 Cr.P.C., the relevant provision for the case on hand is 195 (b) (ii). 9. From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that no Court shall take cognizance unless, the complaint is given in writing by the Court or by any officer authorised by the Court in respect of the offence committed before it. Here according to prosecution, accused produced a forged salary certificate before P.W.1 while standing as surety for an accused in the very same Court. According to this provision with regard to this incident, there must be a complaint either from P.W.1 or by an officer authorised by him. Now according to prosecution, P.W.1 issued an official memo and on the basis of it, the criminal law was set into motion. Now the point that has to be decided is whether Ex.P1 can be treated as a complaint as envisaged under Section 195 Cr.P.C. This Ex.P1 is an official memo given to S.H.O., Gajuwaka Law & Order Police Station, Gajuwaka, which reads as follows:- “VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka, Dt.2.3.2002. MEMO Sub:- Registered a case against S. Ch. V. Rao and Investigate –Reg. * * * The S.H.O., Gajuwaka L&O PS., is hereby directed to Register a case against S.Ch.V.Rao, who is forwarded through P.C.1663 of Gajuwaka L&O P.S., as the individual produced forged Salary Certificate of Depot Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Steel City for the release of P. Srinivasa Rao forwarding Salary Certificate with identity card originals with zerox of identity card for investigation and submit the FIR on or before 13.3.2002 and investigate the matter. VIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHATAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA. Encl:- Zerox copy of identity Card originals of identity Card and salary certificate of S.Ch. Rao. To The S.H.O., Gajuwaka Law & Order P.S., Gajuwaka.” 10. VIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHATAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA. Encl:- Zerox copy of identity Card originals of identity Card and salary certificate of S.Ch. Rao. To The S.H.O., Gajuwaka Law & Order P.S., Gajuwaka.” 10. According to Advocate for revision petitioner, a reading of above memo would disclose that it cannot be termed as complaint and it is only an order of P.W.1 to the S.H.O. As seen from Ex.P1-memo, police appears to have treated this as a compliant and registered F.I.R on the basis of this memo. Now the other contention of Advocate for the revision petitioner is that the Court has to follow Section 340 Cr.P.C for giving a complaint in respect of cases mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. A reading of this Section would show that when an offence referred in Section 195 (1) (b) has been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in a Court, the Court after preliminary enquiry, if any, record a finding to that effect, make a complaint thereof in writing, send it to a Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction take sufficient security for appearance of the accused before such Magistrate and bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.Now according to Advocate for revision petitioner, when P.W.1 noticed that revision petitioner has produced a fake and false document,he should have followed these four steps namely; conducting a preliminary enquiry, recording a finding to that effect, preparing a complaint in writing and send that complaint to a Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction, taking sufficient security for appearance of the accused and bind over any person to appear to give evidence to any such Magistrate, but the learned Magistrate i.e., P.W.1 has not followed this procedure and simply issued a memo to the S.H.O and therefore the entire procedure followed by the Magistrate is incorrect. Learned Advocate for revision petitioner relied on a decision of Supreme Court reported in M.S. AHLWAT v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOHTER (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 278) for the proposition that provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C are mandatory and no Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein, unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that Section. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for revision petitioner this Ex.P1 cannot be treated as a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C as P.W.1 has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In the above referred Supreme Court decision, when a forgery is committed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court while the Hon’ble Court noticed that the petitioner filed affidavit with forged signature and false statement at different stages, he was punished by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by issuing a show cause notice, which was held as without jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that they ought to have followed procedure under Sections 195 Cr.P.C and 340 Cr.P.C and on that ground, conviction imposed by the Supreme Court against the petitioner therein is set aside by a Three Judges’ Bench. In that decision, it is held “provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C are mandatory and no Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a compliant in writing as required under that Section. It is settled law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the Court to order prosecution, but requires the Court to exercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of the administration of justice. Section 340 Cr.P.C prescribes the procedure has to how a complaint may be preferred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. A compliant out side the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or criminal Court under its inherent jurisdiction.” 11. From the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is very clear that a complaint out side the purview of Section 340 Cr.P.C cannot be filed by any Court. So here admittedly, P.W.1 has not followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 340 Cr.P.C., to give a compliant in respect of the offence alleged against revision petitioner. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of an offence committed before that Court is pleased to set aside the punishment given in respect of an accused person for not following the procedure under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C., by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there cannot be any exemption to deviate the procedure by any other Court. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of an offence committed before that Court is pleased to set aside the punishment given in respect of an accused person for not following the procedure under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C., by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there cannot be any exemption to deviate the procedure by any other Court. So as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for revision petitioner as P.W.1 has not followed the procedure under Section 340 Cr.P.C the cognizance taken by Court below against the revision petitioner without a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings have to be treated that they are not in accordance with law as such illegal. 12. For these reasons, I am of the view that conviction against the revision petitioner recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court has to be set aside for non- compliance of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner for the offence under Sections 468 & 471 IPC and he is acquitted of the said charge. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and fine amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner shall be refunded. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand disposed of.