Summary
RIICO’s officer challenged rejection of a protest petition concerning an allegedly forged letter later filed in civil proceedings. The Court confirmed that Section195(1)(b)(ii) did not bar action for pre-filing forgery, but upheld refusal of cognizance because the later orders rested on lack of prima facie material connecting the accused to the forgery.
Issues
- Whether subsequent production of an allegedly forged letter attracted Section195(1)(b)(ii).
- Whether correction of that legal premise required cognizance despite insufficient material linking the accused.
Held
- Following Iqbal Singh Marwah, Section195(1)(b)(ii) applies where the specified offence concerns a document after its production in court, while in judicial custody. The letter was allegedly forged before filing in the civil suit, so that bar was inapplicable. (¶ 8–9)
- The earlier revisional ruling had already resolved the Section195 issue in the complainant’s favour. On subsequent remand the Magistrate and revisional court assessed the evidence independently rather than relying on that bar. Repeating the successful legal argument therefore did not undermine the later merits orders. (¶ 10–12)
- The forensic material supported that the signature was forged but did not establish who made it or connect it to respondent2. On the available material the courts found no prima facie case against that respondent; the Supreme Court found no infirmity warranting interference. (¶¶ 9, 11–13)
Result
Appeal dismissed; refusal of cognizance and rejection of the protest petition upheld on the evidentiary merits, despite Section195(1)(b)(ii) being inapplicable.