Revenue Court bar under CrPC blocks forgery charge on documents before Sales Tax Officer, but cheating charge survives.

The Sales Tax Officer was treated as a Revenue Court for section 195 CrPC because the statutory scheme made him responsible for assessment and collection of revenue and conferred court-like powers over returns, documents, witnesses, affidavits, and commissions. As a result, cognizance of the section 471 IPC charge based on a document produced before that officer was barred without a written complaint, and that prosecution could not proceed. The cheating charge under section 420 IPC was not within the section 195 bar, so the committal remained valid and the trial could continue only on that surviving charge, with the earlier trial set aside from the stage where the irregularity affected the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Sales Tax Officer was a Revenue Court within the meaning of section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to attract the bar on cognizance for the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a document produced before him. (ii) Whether the proceedings and committal could be sustained for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and what consequential order should follow.

Issue (i): Whether the Sales Tax Officer was a Revenue Court within the meaning of section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to attract the bar on cognizance for the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a document produced before him.

Analysis: The functions of the Sales Tax Officer were held to be primarily concerned with assessment and collection of revenue due to the State. The Bombay Sales Tax Act conferred powers to call for returns, require production of documents, make assessments, and exercise powers similar to those of courts in relation to affidavits, summoning witnesses, compelling production of documents, and issuing commissions. Since the officer was specially empowered to decide questions relating to revenue and other courts were excluded from dealing with such questions, he answered the description of a Revenue Court for the purpose of section 195(1)(c).

Conclusion: The Sales Tax Officer was a Revenue Court for the purpose of section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and cognizance of the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code without a complaint in writing was barred; the proceedings on that charge were without jurisdiction and had to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings and committal could be sustained for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and what consequential order should follow.

Analysis: Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was not covered by section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and a complaint for that offence could be made by any person. The committal for the cheating charge was therefore competent. Since evidence had already been taken on the barred charge before the jury, the proper course was to exercise inherent powers to set aside the trial from the stage at which the irregularity affected the proceedings and direct a fresh trial only on the surviving charge.

Conclusion: The committal and proceedings for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were valid, but the trial was directed to proceed afresh before a new jury only on that charge after quashing the proceedings from the stage of empanelling the jury.

Final Conclusion: The reference succeeded in part: the prosecution for using the forged document stood quashed for want of the required complaint, while the cheating charge survived and was remitted for trial before a fresh jury.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly includes a revenue authority within the concept of a court for purposes of a cognizance bar, offences relating to documents produced before that authority cannot be tried without the prescribed written complaint, but offences not covered by the bar remain independently triable.

---