Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 195(1)(b) (ii) and 340(1)-Bar against prosecution in respect of offences of forgery under section 463 or punishable under sections 471, 475 or 476 of Indian Penal Code committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a court-Forgery of documents committed before said document was produced in court-Held, bar under section 195(1)(b) (ii) not applicable--Indian Penal Code, 1872-Sections 463, 471, 475 and 476. 

Interpretation of Statutes·-Construction Provision curbing general jurisdiction of the Court should receive strict construction-Construction capable of causing mischievous~ consequences should be averted

Second respondent filed a complaint against appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging offences under Section 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872. The appellants had forged a document (a certified copy· of Jamabandi-Rent Roll) and produced it in the court of Executive Magistrate which was then dealing with proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police as provided in Section 156(3) of the Code. Police registered an FIR on the basis of the said complaint and after investigation laid a charge-sheet against appellants. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and i~sued process to the appellants. The appellants filed a petition before the High Court under section 482 of the Code for quashing the prosecution on the ground that the magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences in view of bar contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii) of taking cognizance of offence of forgery if-offence is committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a court. 

In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that if the offence alleged is with respect to a document which reached the court then the aforesaid bar operates, no matter whether the offence was committed before or after its production in court. The decision in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai 's case is not relevant as the decision was rendered under the corresponding provision of the old Code which has.a subtle difference from the new provision in Section 195(l)(b)(ii) of the Code because of absence of the words "by a party to any proceedings in any court" in the new code. The ratio laid down in Gopalakrishna Manon's Case would hold the field since that decision was B rendered under the new code.

The first respondent argued that the slight change made in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code vis-a-vis the corresponding provision in the old Code was not for deviating from the legal position settled by the court in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai 's case. The only object for deletion of those words was to advance the protection of section 195(l)(b)(ii) to other persons as well who might not have been parties to the litigation.