Skip to content


Hari Prasad Vs. Debi Dial - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR10All582
AppellantHari Prasad
RespondentDebi Dial
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 195 - sanction for prosecution for giving false evidence in a suit under act xii of 1881 tried by an assistant collector of the second class--sanction granted by collector--jurisdiction of sessions judge to entertain application to revoke sanction. - .....commissioner, for departing from the rule and practice we laid down in queen-empress v. sabsukh i. l. r., 2 all., 533.4. the arguments from convenience preponderate largely in favour of the local and more accessible jurisdiction. [upon this expression of opinion straight, j., set aside the order of the district judge declining jurisdiction and directed him to restore the application for revision from the collector's order to his file and dispose of it according to law.
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J.

1. This is a reference by my brother Straight to this Bench now composed of my brothers Straight, Tyrrell and myself. In a suit for arrears of rent under Section 93, clause (a), Act XII of 1881, which was heard by a Tahsildar having the powers of and acting as an Assistant Collector of the second class, application was made to him for an order sanctioning the prosecution of a witness in the suit for perjury. The Tahsildar, thinking he had no jurisdiction, referred the matter to the Magistrate of the District, who was the Collector. The latter officer made an order sanctioning the prosecution. From that order the witness applied to the Sessions Judge to revoke the sanction. The Sessions Judge, being of opinion that the Collector was not sub ordinate to the Court of the Sessions Judge in this matter within the meaning of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1882, declined to interfere. The witness then applied to the Commissioner of the Division. The Commissioner of the Division, being of opinion that he had no jurisdiction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1882, also declined to interfere. The witness then through counsel applied to this Court to revise the order of the Sessions Judge the principal plea taken being that the Judge of Gorakhpur had jurisdiction to hear the application to revoke the sanction. My brother Tyrrell and I are only asked to express our opinion in the matter. It will be for my brother Straight to pass orders in the case. The question on which we are asked for an opinion is whether the Judge's Court is the Court to which appeals from the Collector's Court ordinarily lie. I have great difficulty in answering that question in the light of the provisions of the N.-W. P. Bent Act on the subject of appeals. Under that Act one set of appeals--from a Collector's decrees in suits--goes necessarily to the District Judge. Another class of appeals--from his orders made in applications--goes necessarily to the Commissioner of the Division. In either case the course of appeal may be described as ordinary: and it is difficult to say whether the Commissioner's Court or the Judge's Court is the Court to which appeals from the Collector's Court ordinarily lie. It would be inconvenient to hold that, in cases arising out of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court to which applications to set aside or to grant a sanction given or refused in the Court below should be made should have to be determined by a consideration of the question of the forum of appeal in the particular matter in which the perjury is alleged to have been committed. It has been suggested by my brother Tyrrell that the framers of Section 195, as amended in 1882, had in mind the normal course of appeals in a district, as provided, for example, in Act VI of 1871, rather than the appellate provisions of peculiar local or special Acts, and that for the purposes of Section 195 the Court of the Judge of the District may be taken to be the Court to which appeals from the Collector's Court ordinarily lie. I think we may come to this conclusion but I must say that I doubt whether the framers of Section 195 of Act X of 1882 had present to their minds the difficulty or ambiguity in this respect arising out of the provisions of the Rent Act XII of 1881. The reference will be returned to our brother Straight with our opinion thereon.

Straight, J.

2. I agree.

Tyrrell, J.

3. I agree. It was held by a Full Bench Queen-Empress v. Sabsukh I. L. R., 2 All., 533, of this Court that a Court of Revenue was a Civil Court within the meaning of Sections 468 and 469 of Act X of 1872, which are replaced by Section 195 of the present Code. It is true that those sections did not contain the provision that ' every Court shall be deemed to be subordinate only to the Court to which appeals from the former Court ordinarily lie.' But the reasons for holding that a Collector trying a suit under the Rent Act is a Civil Court for the purposes of Chapter XXXV of the former Code of Criminal Procedure seem to me to retain all their original force and to be unaffected by the alterations introduced in the corresponding Chapter XV of the present Code. And this being so, I think that the normal course of appeal applicable to civil cases was contemplated in the clause containing the words ' the Court to which appeals from the former Court ordinarily lie.' Moreover, as a very substantial part of a Collector's judicial work under our Rent Act is appealable only to the District Judge (Section 189, Act XII of 1881, and Section 191 id., where the District Judge is indicated as the Court of ' regular appeal ' from a Collector's decree in ' all suits mentioned in Section 93 '), I do not discern a sufficient reason in the mere fact that the Collector's orders in certain cases (Section 196) are not appealable to the Judge but to the Commissioner, for departing from the rule and practice we laid down in Queen-Empress v. Sabsukh I. L. R., 2 All., 533.

4. The arguments from convenience preponderate largely in favour of the local and more accessible jurisdiction. [Upon this expression of opinion Straight, J., set aside the order of the District Judge declining jurisdiction and directed him to restore the application for revision from the Collector's order to his file and dispose of it according to law.


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