Gauri Shankar Lal Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment
|Appellant||Gauri Shankar Lal|
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 476 - legal practitioners act (xviii of 1879), section 23--magistrate holding inquiry--whether a court. - interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute.griffin, j.1. in the coarse of an inquiry under the provisions of section 23 of the legal practitioners act, regarding the conduct of a revenue agent, the applicant now before me, gauri shankar lal, gave certain evidence on oath, which the presiding officer, mr. jopling, considered to be false. under the provisions of section 476 of the code of criminal procedure, mr. jopling directed the prosecution of the applicant for giving false evidence. qauri shankar lal applies in revision to this court. it is contended on his behalf that mr. jopling in holding the inquiry under section 23 of the legal practitioners act was not a court within the meaning of section 476 of the code of criminal procedure. having regard to the definition of court contained in the evidence act and the penal code, i do.....
1. In the coarse of an inquiry under the provisions of Section 23 of the Legal Practitioners Act, regarding the conduct of a Revenue Agent, the applicant now before me, Gauri Shankar Lal, gave certain evidence on oath, which the presiding officer, Mr. Jopling, considered to be false. Under the provisions of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Jopling directed the prosecution of the applicant for giving false evidence. Qauri Shankar Lal applies in revision to this Court. It is contended on his behalf that Mr. Jopling in holding the inquiry under Section 23 of the Legal Practitioners Act was not a Court within the meaning of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having regard to the definition of Court contained in the Evidence Act and the Penal Code, I do not think this contention can prevail.
2. A further ground taken is that Mr. Jopling was not competent to hold an inquiry under Section 23 of the Legal Practitioners Act. It is not clear under what circumstances Mr. Jopling came to hold the inquiry, if the complaint which gave rise to the inquiry against the Revenue Agent, was first filed in the Court of a subordinate to the Collector, Mr. Jopling as Collector was entitled to transfer the proceedings to his Court. On the merits, there is nothing to be said. The application is dismissed.