Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) of the Code and the complaint is simply to be rejected. Hence, as per this judgment, if complaint on the face of it does not disclose commission of offence, Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code. It means that if complaint on the face of it does disclose commission of offence. Magistrate shall take cognizance under Section 191(1)(a) of the Code.

18. Insofar as submission of learned counsel for revisionist that for evading the payment of service tax etc., offence under Section 89 of the Finance Act, 1994 attracts and as per 89(4) of the said Act, there is a bar for prosecution except the previous sanction of Chief Commissioner of the Service Tax, is concerned, it is sufficient to say that respondent has alleged about offence of forgery and cheating punishable under the provisions of IPC. Further insofar as a submission of learned counsel for revisionist pertaining to bar of the cognizance under Section 195(1)(a)(i) for the offence under Section 176 and 177 IPC is concerned, it is also sufficient to say that respondent has alleged about offence of forgery and cheating punishable under the provisions of IPC. Insofar as, submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that complainant himself has confined his complaint for the offence of forgery is concerned, it is mentioned in para no. 8 of complaint/application under Section 156(3) of the Code, both AU and AGVPL are guilty of offences of forgery and cheating, making money running into hundreds of crore and cheating the state exchequer as well as innocent students.

"6. In the case of K.V.R. Iyyanger v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1988 (2) CRIMES VIII 882 it was held, that in order to establish an offence of forgery under section 463 IPC punishable under Section 465 IPC the presence of the original document before the court concerned is necessary. Copy or photo stat copy is not sufficient in order to establish offence of forgery. In the present case also the original was never produced in that court nor it was proved in the court in accordance with law hence the offence of forgery or using the said forged document has not been proved. Once the offence of forgery is not proved there is no question of using the forged document as genuine. Accordingly the accused persons cannot even by convicted under Section 465/468/471/120-B of IPC.".

27. The Revisional Court also vide its impugned judgment as already adverted to hereinabove has observed vide paragraph 18 of it impugned verdict to the effect that the respondent had alleged of the offence of forgery and cheating qua offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and that thus, the allegations made in the complaint could not be brushed aside and that an opportunity had to be given to the respondent to lead evidence in support of his contentions and that if after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of any inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there are no substantial grounds for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and that the Magistrate is to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable at the stage of consideration of proceedings under Sections 203 & 204 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 as the case may be.