' The petitioner calls in question the order dated 11th January, 1977 passed by the District Magistrate, Lahore in an appeal filed under section 476-B of the Criminal Procedure Code. Briefly the facts are as under :- ' Respondent No, 1 allegedly made a false statement before the Revenue Officer during the attestation of a mutation that Mst. Bakhtawar (petitioner's mother) had died and that her property be transferred in the name of Mst. Jhando as her legal heir. It is to be noted that Mat. Jhando was the mother of respondent No, 1 who is also said to have filed a fictitious pedigree-table before the Revenue Officer in support of his plea. The Assistant Collector-II, Lahore, who had considered this matter, accepted the contention of respondent No, 1 and attested mutation No, 386 dated 29th November, 1957 holding that Mst. Jhando the mother of respondent No, 1 was the legal heir of Mst.
Bakhtawar.
2. Mst. Bakhtawar who is stated to be alive at the relevant time prayed for a review of the mutation.
Those proceedings went on and the case was finally decided by the Member, Board of Revenue, on 22nd February, 1974, directing that mutation No, 386 be cancelled and proceedings against Abdur Rehman respondent and Tufail Muhammad, Assistant Collector II be taken. A Writ Petition No, 393 of 1974 filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 others also failed and was dismissed on 3rd April, 1974.
3. On 11th March, 1974, the petitioner filed a complaint under sections 192, 196, 198, 207, 419, 420, 471/468, P. P. C. Before the Assistant Commissioner. The respondents, on being summoned, raised a preliminary objection that as no complaint had been filed by the Assistant Collector II under section 195, Cr. P. C. The Assistant Commissioner was not competent to try the case. The objection was sustained by the Assistant Commissioner who by his order dated 29th July, 1974, held that he had no jurisdiction to try the case in the absence of a complaint made to him by the Assistant Collector IL He, therefore, directed that Assistant Collector II may draw up a proper complaint.
4. On 1st September, 1975, the Assistant Collector II sent a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner, who transferred it to Mr. Najeebullah, Magistrate Ist Class. He framed a charge. During the pendency of the proceedings the respondents filed an appeal under section 476-B before the District Magistrate, who has passed the impugned order.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the Assistant Collector II, who had attested the mutation, was not Revenue Court, the District Magistrate illegally held that proceedings in accordance with section 476, Cr. P. C. Should have been taken in the matter. He referred to sections 192 and 196 and other provisions to say that prima fade the conduct of respondent No, 1 amounted to an offence under those provisions and that as the Assistant Collector IC was not a Court, section 195, Cr. P. C. Was not attracted. He also relied on a judgment of this Court in Malik Fateh Khan v. Najtb Ullah Khan (1) and a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mst.
Than v. Mohammad etc. (2) in support of his plea that a Revenue Officer while attesting a mutation does not act as a Court.
(1) PLD 1957 Lah. 631 (2) PLD 1973 SC 619
6. The learned counsel for the respondent pressed into service section 184 read with section 27 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 to submit that as the proceedings before a Revenue Officer attesting a mutation had been termed as judicial proceedings by those provisions and as it was a procedural matter, the impugned order was valid and legal. A cursory look at these provisions would show that section 184 of Land Revenue Act is not applicable. I shall, however, discuss the implication of section 27 of the Land Revenue Act presently.
7. It is to be seen that declaration made by respondent No, 1 during mutation proceedings about death of Mst. Bakhtawar and the production of the 'Shajra Nasab' (pedigree-table) if found to be false and fabricated, would bring his case under criminal provisions of law. However, as the Revenue Officer, attesting the mutation at the relevant time, was not a Court and the proceedings before him were not judicial proceedings, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, section 195, Cr. P. C. Would not be attracted. A competent Magistrate therefore, would have been entitled to take cognizance of the case under section 190, Cr. P. C. On a complaint made to him without resort of section 476, Cr. P. C.
8. The other question involved is whether the subsequent change in law in view of section 27 of the Land Revenue Act declaring mutation proceedings as also judicial proceedings would make any difference so far this case is concerned? Section 195 (1) (b) reads as under I- "195 (1).-No Court shall take cognizance- (a)
(b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely, sections 193, 194, 195, 196,199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate."
' A clear import of this provision is that offence should have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any Court in order to bring it under section 195, Cr. P. C. Section 195, Cr. P. C.
Concerns itself with offences under sections 172 to 188, P. P. C. (section 195 (1) (a)). Cognizance in such cases can be taken on the complaint of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. Section 195 (1,(b), Cr. P. C. Refers to offences punishable under any of sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228, P. P. C. When such offence is committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any Court. The above provision is applicable to all persons whereas section 195 (1) (c) only refers to a patty to any proceedings in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding in respect of offences under sections 463 or 471, 475 and 476.
9. Section 195 (b) and (c), Cr. P. C. Thus pertains only to offences under the above-noted penal provisions as are committed in or in relation to any proceeding before a Court. It will, therefore, not embrace such criminal acts which may though fall under the penal provisions mentioned in section 195 (b) and (c) yet which may have been committed in a different situation. In the case in hand the objectionable acts had been committed before al revenue officer. According to the two judgments noted above, proceedings before him were not Judicial proceedings to attract application of section 1951 Cr. P. C. Section 27 of the Land Revenue Act is not retrospective' in application so as to convert the proceedings conducted in 1957 as judicial proceedings. Section 195, Cr. P. C. Thus has no application and the learned Magistrate had lawfully and validly taken cognizance of the same.
' For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the impugned order of the learned District Magistrate is not correct. It is, therefore, set aside. The complaint shall be proceeded with before the trial Court.