Original forged documents in court to satisfy counsel that copy of that document used as annexure to Affidavit was correct copy document held not produced in court section 195 not attracted.

Appeal is directed against the judgement of the High Court reversing the order of the Magistrate refusing to frame charges against the appellant s under section 471 and 424, IPC where in Supreme Court under subsection (1)(b) (ii) of section 195 of the Code lays down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence described in the section mentioned therein when such offence is alleged to have been committed in report of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceedings in any court. Interpreting the similar language of the corresponding provision s in the earlier Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, the Privy Council in Sanmukh Singh v King observed that the production of a copy of the allegedly forged document it can't be plain grammatical meaning of the words and is also supported by the practical common sense.

The judgement committee was followed in Budhu Ram vs State of Rajasthan, held since the documents alleged to have been forced was not in the present case produced in the court,the provision of section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code have no application. Supreme Court , therefore, confirm the High Courts direction.

If a complaint is filed by a person other than a public servant, the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint must examine the complainant on oath and witness,if any , present there and substance of such examination must be reduced to writing but if a complaint is filed in writing by a public servant,then the matter stands otherwise. The proviso to section 200 of the Code says that when the complaint is made in writting by a public servant acting of his official capacity or by a court,the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses.