Section 195 CrPC bar on forgery offences does not apply where forged documents were never produced in evidence.

Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bars cognizance only for specified forgery-related offences when committed by a party to the proceeding in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in that proceeding. The provision did not apply here because the respondent was also prosecuted for offences outside the bar, and the alleged use of the forged bills under Section 471 IPC occurred before he became a party to the civil proceeding. The forged bills were not produced or tendered in evidence before the Company Judge. The trial was therefore not barred, the High Court had jurisdiction to proceed, and the discharge order was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bar under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applied to the respondent's trial for forgery-related offences, particularly where the alleged offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was said to have been committed before he became a party to the civil proceeding and the forged documents were not produced or given in evidence in that proceeding.

Analysis: Section 195(1)(c) restricts cognizance only of offences described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 471, 475 and 476 when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to a proceeding in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in that proceeding. The respondent was also being tried for offences under Sections 418 and 477A, which were outside the statutory bar. As to Section 471, the alleged use of the forged bills occurred before the respondent became a party to the proceeding, and the forged bills were not produced or tendered in evidence before the Company Judge. On the settled construction of Section 195(1)(c), the prohibition does not extend to offences committed before a person became a party to the proceeding, nor does it apply where the relevant document was never produced or given in evidence.

Conclusion: Section 195(1)(c) did not bar the trial, and the High Court had jurisdiction to proceed; the discharge order was unsustainable.

---