B. KARUNAKAR HEGDE Vs. THE STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 474 and 471 of the I. P. C. He has been committed to take his trial before the Sessions Judge of South Kanara. In the present revision petition, the order committing the petitioner to take his trial before the Court of Session, has been attacked on the ground that the said order is illegal and is in contravention of the mandatory provisions of law and the prayer is for the quashing of the order of commitment. Amongst other sections, this petition purports to be also under Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE facts as can be gathered from the order of commitment, are as follows : The present petitioner had been in possession, on 16 -2 -1960 of a forged 'Soda Chit' or a relinquishment deed in respect of a land bearing Survey No. 30 -46 -A which was situated at Killings locality of Havanje village. The allegation also was that on the same date, viz., 16 -2 -1960, the petitioner had dishonestly used as genuine that 'Soda Chit', knowing or having reason to believe at the time it was used, that it was a forged document. The prosecution case was that the accused had thereby committed offences under Sections 474 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. This 'Soda Chit' was dated 9 -2 -1959 and purported to have been executed by one Anantha Naika. From the facts stated in the order of commitment, it would also appear that the prosecution allegations were to the effect that on 9 -2 -1959 the petitioner had produced an old man before the Tahsildar, representing that the old man was the tenant Anantha Naika who wanted to execute this release deed in respect of the leased land. According to the case of the prosecution, the real tenant Anantha Naika had not at all executed this 'Soda Chit' or relinquishment deed. It is on these allegations, the accused was committed by the learned Magistrate (on a perusal of the relevant papers), to take his trial before the Court of Session, for the alleged offences under Sections 474 and 471 of the I. P. C.

(3.) THE first argument of Sri Deshpande is, that the Tahsildar in accepting the surrender on the basis of the representation alleged to have been made by the petitioner and on the strength of the 'Soda Chit', was functioning as a Court, under the provisions of Section 3 -A of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The said Section 3 -A was inserted in that Act, by the Mysore Act No. 15 of 1957 and reads as follows : "3 -A. Surrender by cultivating tenants : (1) A cultivating tenant may at any time surrender his rights in any land leased to him in favour of the landlord. (2) A surrender referred to in Sub -section (1) shall not be effective unless it is made by the cultivating tenant in writing, and is admitted by him before, and is made in good faith to the satisfaction of, the Tahsildar, and is registered in the office of the Tahsildar in the prescribed manner : "Provided that where the land is cultivated jointly by joint cultivating tenants or members of an undivided Hindu Family, unless the surrender is made by all of them it shall be ineffective in respect of such joint tenants as have not subscribed to such surrender. 3. Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sub -section (2), shall, on the conviction, be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees."