KESHAB NARAYAN BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises in this appeal is whether Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is a 'Court' within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court held that Compensation Officer is not a Court and dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4073 of 1986, filed by the appellants, for quashing the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna.

(2.) The appellants are facing trial in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna wherein it is alleged that in pursuance of a conspiracy entered into by them, payment of Rs. 2 crore by way of compensation was fraudulently obtained by them and thus they have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 457, 468, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with sub-section (1)(c) and (d) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellants raised a preliminary objection before the learned Special Judge that the aforesaid offences are alleged to have been committed by the appellants in respect of a document produced in the compensation proceedings before the Compensation Officer and as Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is a "Court" within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) the complaint could have been filed only by that Compensation Officer and as that has not been done in this case, the Special Judge (Vigilance) had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of those offences. The learned Special Judge overruled that objection. The appellants then filed an application under Section 482 of the Code in the Patna High Court praying that the proceedings before the Special Judge be quashed on the ground that no proper complaint, as required by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code has been filed. Initially, the said application was heard by a Division Bench of that Court. It doubted correctness of the decision of an earlier Division Bench in Chandra Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, 1975 BBCJ 656, wherein it was held that Compensation Officer appointed under the Act is a 'Court' as defined by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code. The said application was, therefore, placed before a Full Bench of the High Court. It held that Compensation Officer appointed under the Act is not a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code. The correctness of that decision is questioned in this appeal.

(3.) Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code debars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, except on a complaint in writing of that Court, or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. This bar also applies to criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or abetment of such offences. Sub-section (3) of that Section provides that the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of that Section. It is now not in dispute that the Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, if he is a tribunal, has not been declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of Section 195(1)(b).