Skip to content


Gurumayum Kanhai Sharma Vs. Md. Abulatif Mia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantGurumayum Kanhai Sharma
RespondentMd. Abulatif Mia
Excerpt:
- - both under sections 50 to 54 of the land and revenue regulation as well as under section, 476 cr. it is clearly necessary that the s......petitioner that the s. d. c. had no jurisdiction to grant mutation under sections 50 to 54 of the land and revenue regulation and that the mutation proceedings before the s. d. c. i. w. t. were, therefore, totally without jurisdiction, that the s. d. c., cannot, therefore, be said to have been acting as a revenue court and that therefore the s. d. c. cannot hold any enquiry under section 476 cr. p. c. or make a complaint and that the entire proceedings taken before the s. d. c. both under sections 50 to 54 of the land and revenue regulation as well as under section, 476 cr. p. c. are without jurisdiction and that the order passed in the latter proceedings to send the document to an expert should therefore be set aside. my attention was also drawn in that connection to the order passed.....
Judgment:

T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.

1. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution and Section 561-A Cr. P. C. to set aside the order passed by the S. D. C. I. W. T. on 6-9-1961.

2. The respondent herein applied to the S. D. C. I. W. T. in September, 1959, for transfer of patta in respect of plot No. 193 in patta No. 99 on the strength of a sale-deed in his name from the owners of the land. The petitioner objected to it and produced a receipt from one Gulam Rasul as Ext. B/1 agreeing to sell the said land to him and he also claimed to be in possession of the land. In the proceeding, Gulam Rasul came and deposed in favour of the-respondent and stated that the said document produced by the petitioner was a forgery. The S. D. C. did not go into the question of the genuineness or otherwise of the document, but said that there was doubt about the actual sale-in favour of the respondent and so the mutation in favour of the respondent was kept in abeyance and parties were directed to go to the Civil Court to decide the matter. This order was passed on 23-6-1960.

The respondent then applied to the Deputy Commissioner in Revenue Miscellaneous Case NO. 58 of 1960, against the said order, but the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the application on 23-3-1961 holding that admittedly the petitioner was in physical possession of the land and the respondent had no such possession and hence mutation cannot be granted in favour of the respondent and he held that the order to seek redress in a competent Civil Court was a correct order. This was on 23-3-1961. It. appears that Civil Suits T. S. No. 1 of 1961 and T. S. No. 17 of 1960 are now pending before the Subordinate Judge and that the question of the genuineness of the document produced by the petitioner has been challenged in the Civil Suits and the matter is pending decision.

3. On 3-6-1961, the respondent applied to the S. D. C. T. W. T. praying that he may file a complaint under Section 195 (1) (c) Cr. P. C. against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 467 and 474 I.P.C. as the petitioner produced a forged document in the Court, knowing the same to be forged and intending that it should be fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine. In answer to the petition, the petitioner pointed out that the S. D. C. had no jurisdiction to file the said complaint. The S. D. C., however, did not go into the question of jurisdiction, but stated that he has perused the records in the mutation case and that it was expedient in the interest of justice to hold a preliminary enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the facts mentioned in the petition and that it was essential that the document should be examined by an Expert to decide whether it was a forgery or not. It is against this order that this application has been filed.

4. It was contended for the petitioner that the S. D. C. had no jurisdiction to grant mutation under Sections 50 to 54 of the Land and Revenue Regulation and that the mutation proceedings before the S. D. C. I. W. T. were, therefore, totally without jurisdiction, that the S. D. C., cannot, therefore, be said to have been acting as a Revenue Court and that therefore the S. D. C. cannot hold any enquiry under Section 476 Cr. P. C. or make a complaint and that the entire proceedings taken before the S. D. C. both under Sections 50 to 54 of the Land and Revenue Regulation as well as under Section, 476 Cr. P. C. are without jurisdiction and that the order passed in the latter proceedings to send the document to an Expert should therefore be set aside. My attention was also drawn in that connection to the order passed by me in Civil Writ Case No. 2 of 1959 in which I had held that S. D. Cs. did not have the power of a Deputy Commissioner under the Land and Revenue Regulation to hold mutation proceedings under Sections 50 to 54 of the said regulation and to grant pattas.

5. For the respondents, my attention was drawn to the Notification No. R/68/51-11/27 of the Administration dated 27-6-1960, by which the Chief Commissioner conferred the powers of a Deputy Commissioner under Chapter IV of the Land and Revenue Regulation on S. D. Cs. But this notification does not, in any way, help the respondent as the mutation proceedings were held by the S. D. C. and the order passed therein on 23-6-1960, that is, before he was invested with the power of a Deputy Commissioner. In fact. I am unable to understand how the S. D. C. held the mutation proceedings in the face of my order in Writ Case No. 2 of 1959, in which I had held that the S. D. Cs. had no such powers.

The notification above referred to was evidently made by the Chief Commissioner in view of my order in the said Writ Case. So, it is clear that on the date when this S. D. C. held the proceedings, he had no power to do so and that he acted entirely without jurisdiction. He, cannot, therefore, be said to have been acting as a Revenue Court in holding the proceedings, which he had no power to hold at all. It follows from this that Section 476 Cr. P, C. will not apply to the present case as no offence referred to in Section 195 Sub-section 1 Clause (b) or (c) Cr. P. C. can be said to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the Revenue Court, as the S. D. C. cannot be said to have been conducting proceedings as a Revenue Court when the S. D. C. was acting without any jurisdiction. It further follows that the S. D. C. cannot entertain an application to file a complaint to the Magistrate under Section 195 (1)(b) or (c). The entire proceedings before the S. D. C. under Section 476 Cr. P. C. are therefore without jurisdiction.

6. For the respondent certain decisions were cited to show that Section 439 Cr. P. C. dealing with the re visional jurisdiction of this Court will not apply to the present proceeding and that therefore this Court cannot act in the exercise of such revisional jurisdiction in dealing with this matter. But the petitioner has not invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Article 227 of the Constitution which gives to this Court the power of Superintendence over all Courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction will certainly apply in this case and if it is found that any Court or tribunal seeks to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, the High Court has the power to interfere. I think even Section 561-A Cr. P. C. will apply in the present case.

Section 561-A does not limit the inherent power of the High Court to interfere with the orders only in Criminal cases. It says that the High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr. P, C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Where, therefore, a Revenue Court seeks to hold an enquiry under Section 476 Cr. P. C. which it has no jurisdiction to do, the High Court certainly has the power of interference with such an order under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. It is clearly necessary that the S. D. C. should not be allowed to hold the enquiry which he has no jurisdiction to entertain. Further, the matter of the genuineness or otherwise of the document in question is being decided in proceedings . in the Civil Courts. The stage to hold proceedings under Section 476 Cr. P. C. will be after the Civil Court has adjudicated on the genuineness of the document in question. The order of the S. D. C. dated 6-9-1961 is, therefore, set aside and the proceedings under Section 476 Cr. P. C. pending before the S. D. C. are quashed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //