Revenue Court jurisdiction under criminal procedure bars forgery cognizance without complaint, while cheating prosecution may continue separately.

An authority exercising statutory powers in sales tax assessment and collection may be treated as a Revenue Court for section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, where it can require documents, summon witnesses, take affidavits and issue commissions, and ordinary court jurisdiction is excluded. On that basis, cognizance of a section 471 IPC offence based on a forged document produced before the Sales Tax Officer required a written complaint by that officer or a superior court. Proceedings on the forgery-linked charge were therefore quashed for want of the statutory complaint, while the separate cheating charge under section 420 IPC was not barred by section 195 and could proceed independently.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a Sales Tax Officer functioning under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, is a Revenue Court within section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, so that cognizance of an offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on a document produced before him could be taken only on a written complaint by that officer or a superior court; and (ii) whether the committal and further proceedings were liable to be quashed in respect of the charge under section 471 read with section 467 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while the charge under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, could still proceed.

Issue (i): whether a Sales Tax Officer functioning under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, is a Revenue Court within section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, so that cognizance of an offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on a document produced before him could be taken only on a written complaint by that officer or a superior court;

Analysis: The expression "Court" in section 195(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 includes a Revenue Court. The Sales Tax Officer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 exercises statutory powers connected with assessment and collection of revenue, may require production of accounts and documents, and has powers analogous to those of a court in respect of affidavits, summoning witnesses, compelling production of documents, and issuing commissions. The Act also excludes ordinary court jurisdiction in matters entrusted to the sales tax authorities. These features show that the officer is not merely an administrative authority but one vested with adjudicatory powers in revenue matters.

Conclusion: The Sales Tax Officer is a Revenue Court for the purpose of section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, and cognizance of the section 471 charge required a written complaint by that authority or a superior court.

Issue (ii): whether the committal and further proceedings were liable to be quashed in respect of the charge under section 471 read with section 467 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while the charge under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, could still proceed.

Analysis: Since the forged document was produced in proceedings before a Revenue Court, the prosecution for the section 471 charge could not proceed without the complaint contemplated by section 195. That defect went to jurisdiction and required the committal and the proceedings on that charge to be set aside. The charge under section 420 stood on a different footing because it is not one of the offences barred by section 195, and a complaint or police investigation could validly support its prosecution. The proper course, therefore, was to quash the proceedings only from the stage infected by the invalid 471 trial and permit the 420 charge to be tried afresh.

Conclusion: The committal and proceedings were quashed as regards the section 471 read with section 467 and section 34 charge, but the section 420 read with section 34 charge was allowed to proceed before a fresh jury.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms the jurisdictional bar under section 195 for forgery-related offences committed in revenue proceedings before a Sales Tax Officer, while preserving the separate prosecution for cheating.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority exercising adjudicatory powers in sales tax assessment and collection can be treated as a Revenue Court under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, and a prosecution for use of a forged document in such proceedings cannot be taken cognizance of without the required written complaint.

---