Ramachandra Iyer, J.
1. In S.R. No. 32806 of 1957, Ramaswami, J. has held that (1) as a remedy by way of appeal lies against the order complained of no revision would lie; (2) that the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court should be deemed to be subordinate to the Principal City Civil Judge's Court Within the meaning of Section 476-B read with Section 195(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. It follows that an appeal against the order complained of would lie to the Principal Judge, the revision petition cannot be entertained.
Annexure (Office note):
3. This S.B. is sought to be presented as a civil revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 10-3-1959 in I.A. 1127 of 1957 in O.S. No. 1302 of 1955, on the file of the first Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. That application was under Section 476 Cri.P.C. seeking sanction of a complaint to the court of any Presidency Magistrate, Madras so that the respondent therein may be tried for the offences under Sections 193 and 477(a) I.P.C. the respondent is alleged to have tampered with certain documents. The lower Court dismissed the application and against the order in the said application, refusing to accord the sanction for prosecution, the present S.R. is filed in the form of a civil revision petition.
4. An objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the C.R.P., as, under Section 476-B of the Crl.P.C. an appeal only lies to the District Court, against the order rejecting an application to launch a prosecution. The advocate contends that his remedy is only under Section 115 C.P.C. and cites an authority, Kumaravel Nadar v. Shanmuga Nadar : AIR1940Mad465 . It is submitted that the authority cited does not appear to support the contention of the advocate. On the other hand, it supports the objection taken against the maintainability of the C.R.P. at the first instance without exhausting the remedy by way of an appeal to the District Court (in this case the Principal City Civil Court, Madras).
5. Section 476-B of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly confers a right of appeal against the order on an application under Section 476 or 476-A. The appeal lies to the court to which that court passing the order is subordinate (vide M.C. Sheriff v. State of Madras : 1SCR1144 . No second appeal lies to the High Court from an order of the appellate court under Section 476-B. But there may be a revision. In Palaniappa Chetti v. Chettiappa Chetti : AIR1927Mad683 , it has been held by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, that against an order passed on an application for launching a criminal prosecution, an appeal will lie to the District Court even where the value of the suit in the lower court is over Rs. 5000.
It is clear from the decision, that irrespective of the value of the suits, the aggrieved party will have to exhaust his remedy by way of an appeal to the District Court, before he comes to the High Court under Section 115 C.P.C. therefore it is submitted that no revision appears to lie in cases in which an appeal lies and it is not possible for the petitioner to file the revision petition to the High Court without preferring an appeal to the District Court (Principal City Civil Court in this case).
6. In the case cited by the Advocate : AIR1940Mad465 an appeal was first preferred to the District Court, and then a revision petition to the High Court and the question that was considered was whether the revision should be dealt with on the Criminal side, under Sections 435 and 439 Crl.P.C. or on the civil side the court took the view that the matter should be dealt with on the civil side following the decision in Emperor v. K. Venkanna Patrudu 31 Mad LJ 440 : AIR 1017 Mad 971.
Hence the case cited does not appear to be an authority for filing the revision petition in the High Court, before exhausting the remedy in the Principal City Civil Court. The same question was considered in S.R. No. 32806 of 1957 (Mad) and it was decided that a civil revision petition did not lie to the High Court and the papers were directed to be returned to the petitioner for preferring a civil miscellaneous appeal to the Principal City Civil Court, if so advised.
7. The principle laid down in : AIR1927Mad683 and the order in S.R. 32806 of 1957 (Mad) cited above, directly covers the subject to issue. As this is not conceded by the advocate who wants this matter to be posted before court, it is submitted for orders.