Mr. Ravi Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the purpose of Section 195 is to bar private prosecution where the cause of justice is sought to be perverted leaving it to the Court itself to uphold its dignity and prestige. If a very restricted interpretation is given to Section 195 Cr.P.C., the protection afforded by the provision will be virtually reduced to a vanishing point, defeating the very object of the enactment. The provision does not completely bar the prosecution of a person who has committed an offence of the type described thereunder but introduces a safeguard in the sense that he can be so prosecuted only on the complaint of the Court where the document has been produced or given in evidence or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Learned counsel has also submitted that being a penal provision, giving a restricted meaning as held in the case of Kanak Lata (supra) would not be proper as a person accused of having committed an offence would be deprived of the protection given to him by the legislature. He has also submitted that on the aforesaid view there is a possibility of conflicting findings being recorded by the civil or revenue Court where the document has been produced or given in evidence and that recorded by the criminal Court on the basis of private complaint and therefore an effort should be made to interpret the Section in the manner which avoids such a possibility. Shri K.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the language of the Section is clear and there being no ambiguity therein, the only possible manner in which it can be interpreted is that-the complaint by a Court would be necessary when the offences enumerated in the Section are committed at a time when the document has already been produced or given in evidence in Court i.e. when it is in the proceedings of the Court. The provision has to be strictly construed as it creates a bar on the power of the Court to take cognizance of an offence and any provision which ousts the jurisdiction of the Court, which must be strictly construed and cannot be given an enlarged meaning. Since the provision deprives a person who is a victim and is aggrieved by the offences described under Section 463 or punishable under Section471, 475 or 476 IPC to initiate a criminal prosecution by filing a complaint, his interest cannot be overlooked and therefore the provision should not be given an enlarged meaning but only a restricted meaning should be given. Learned counsel has also submitted that in certain situations where the forgery has been committed at any time prior to the production or giving in evidence of the document in Court, it may not at all be possible for such Court to effectively form an opinion as to whether it is expedient to file a complaint and that may facilitate the escape of a guilty person. Submit