Shyam Lal Sharma vs State

Hari Swarup, J.—This revision hits been filed against an order of the Sessions Judge exercising his powers u/s 437 Code of Criminal Procedure. He directed t ha t accused Shyam Lal be committed for trial to the court of Sessions u/s 467 read with Section 109 and 468 read with Section 109 IPC. The learned Magistrate had discharged Shyam Lal. That order has been set aside and the Magistrate, has been directed to take accused Shyam Lal into custody and commit him for trial.

The facts in brief are that an application had been moved by one Smt. Ratna u/s 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for obtaining Sanad in respect of certain plots of land. She claimed to be a co-sharer along with one Tej Singh. The application also purported to show consent of Tej Singh regarding the deposit of money by Smt. Ratna for obtaining the Sartad. Tej Singh however denied that the thumb impression was his. This thumb impression is said to have been identified by accused Shyam Lal.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that as the application by smt. Ratna was moved in the Court and the identification had been done by the applicant Shyam Lal in the court in a proceeeding, the offence will be deemed to have been committed by a party to the proceeding in the court, within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that he could not be deemed to be a party to the proceeding simply because he had identified the thumb-impression.

Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 uses the words in relation to any proceeding in any court. Clause (c), however, uses different words "when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in, any court in respect of a document produced or given in such proceeding." A party in a proceeding means either the applicant or the opposite party. It does not include the witnesses or persons who appear as witnesses. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure was accordingly not attracted.

The order of the learned Sessions Judge being not contrary to law cannot be set aside. The revision is accordingly dismissed.