SHARADA BAI AND Vs. KLAKSHMINARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Cr. Misc. Appeal No. 11/1953 reversing that of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mysore, in Misc. No. 103 of 51-52.

(2.) The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: The petitioners 1 and 2, who are wife and husband respectively were defendants in O. S. No. 46 of 50-51 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mysore. The respondent was the plaintiff. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was based on a registered mortgage deed and the petitioners pleaded 'inter alia' partial discharge of the debt in Question. In support of the discharge pleaded, the petitioner produced two letters which are marked as Exs. I and II purporting to have been sent to them by the respondent-plaintiff, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 4000/-. The learned Subordinate Judge found, on evidence, that the discharge pleaded by the petitioners based on Exs. I and II was false and he accordingly decreed the respondent-plaintiff's suit. Then, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application before the learned Subordinate Judge under Section 476 read with Section 195, Criminal P. C., requesting the Court to prefer a complaint against the petitioners for offences under s. 191, 192, 196, 209 and 463, Penal Code. To that application the petitioners filed. objections saying that they were not guilty of any offence and that the application was filed just to harass them. The learned 8ubordinate Judge after going through the evidence adduced in the case and after taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances held that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioners had forged Exs. I and II, and that no action was necessary under the circumstances and he accordingly dismissed the petition. Then the respondent-plaintiff took that order in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, who disagreeing with the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge held that an offence under Section 471, Penal Code was made out against the petitioners. He accordingly allowed the appeal and directed the learned Subordinate Judge to prefer a complaint to the City Magistrate, Mysore against the petitioners for an offence under Section 471, Penal Code. It is as against that order of the learned Sessions Judge that this revision petition is filed.

(3.) The main point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the learned Sessions Judge can be supported. It appears to me that the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the learned Subordinate Judge to prefer a complaint against the petitioners under Section 476, Criminal P. C., cannot at all be sustained and the same has to be set aside on more than one ground. The first ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the prosecution of the petitioners is without Jurisdiction, ultra vires and illegal. In support of this contention two arguments were advanced by the learned counsel. The first one was that the subject-matter of the suit in O. S. No. 46 of 50-51 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, exceeded Rs. 5000/-, that the District Court has thus no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on the decree passed in the said original suit, that the appeal lay to the High Court, that the appeal against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing the respondent's petition should have been preferred to the High Court and that therefore the District Court had no right -to hear the appeal.