Full Judgment
Stuart, J.
1. The point raised in this application is as follows: A certain Rameshar Das swore to the contents of an affidavit in the court of the District Judge of Cawnpore in support of an application for transfer of a civil suit.
2. The other side applied for sanction to prosecute Rameshar Das for having sworn false allegations in that affidavit. The District Judge refused this sanction but the High Court granted it.
3. Rameshar Das is under trial in respect of the matter. In connection with that trial Lachmi Narain has instituted criminal proceedings against Ram Bilas, the employer of Rameshar Das, Das, on the ground that Ram Bilas abetted the commission of the offence committed by Bameshar Das.
4. The Joint Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case as against Ram Bilas, holding that Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no application to the case.
5. It has been held by this Court, amongst others, that when an offence described in Section 463, or Sections 471, 475 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed by a person who is not a party to any proceeding or given evidence in such proceeding, the provisions of Section 195 have no operation, and it was upon the authority of these views that the Joint Magistrate apparently took the course which he has taken. But the provisions of Section 195, Clause (b), differ materially from the provisions of the same section Clause (c).
6. It is true that Section 195(3) applies to both but as I read the authorities on Section 195(c) no question of abetment ever arose in the recorded cases when the accused person was not a party to the proceedings in the court. It was not in those cases necessary to discuss whether the offence charged was a substantive offence or the abetment of a substantive offence. If the person accused was not a party to the proceedings in court, the provisions of Section 195(c) would certainly not be applicable, as those provisions refer only to charges against the parties to the proceedings, and no sanction would be necessary. But in the case of offences to which reference is made in Section 195, Clause (b). I consider that a court taking cognizance of such an offence when that offence has been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any court, or a court taking cognizance of a criminal conspiracy to commit such an offence or of abetment or attempt to commit such an offence, cannot do so unless sanction has been given not only to the factum, but to cover the case of each person who is charged with having committed it.
7. The accused person, it is true, need not be named but he must be indicated. For the above reasons, I am of opinion that the Joint Magistrate's court cannot take cognizance of the offence charged against Ram Bilas without the sanction of the District Judge or of the High' Court.
8. I, therefore, direct the Joint Magistrate to refrain from taking proceedings against Ram Bilas and I quash' the said proceedings.