RAMANNA RAI Vs. A GNARAYANA BHANDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent before me filed Order P. No. 117/1956 before the Court of the District Munsiff of Puttur, South Kanara, under Seections, 195and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the Court may be pleased to make a complaint against the petitioners before me for offences-said to have been committed by them under Sections 193, 209, 467 and 471 read with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The allegations in support of this application are that a certain lease deed, on the strength of which Original Sout No. 391/1952 was filed by the second petitioner before me against the respondent in the District Munsiffs Court of Puttur, was fabricated by the first petitioner in connivance with the other petitioners and that he also made petitioners 3 and 4 to give false evidence in support of it. The suit had been dismissed on the finding that the lease deed in question was false. This petition was filed on 26-10-1956. Notice-returnable 19-11-1956 was issued to the respondents therein (i.e., petitioners before me). Before the matter could proceed further, the States Reorganisation Act (Central. Act 37 of 1956) came into force and consequently a part of the territory which was-Subject to the jurisdiction of the District Munsiff's Court of Puttur became part of the territory of the new State of Kerala. The property to which the lease deed in question related is situate within the said part of the territory which became a part of the territory of the Kerala State. The petitioners, therefore, raised the preliminary objection that by virtue of Section 125 of the States-Re-organisation Act Order P. 117/1956 automatically stood transferred to the Court of the District Mun-siff of Kasargod in Kerala State. This preliminary objection was upheld by the District Munsiff of Puttur and he forwarded the papers to the District Munsiff of Kasargod for disposal. The respondent before me filed an appeal against that order before the District Judge of South Kanara under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that appeal was numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 1957. The learned District Judge disagreed with the view taken by the District Munsiff and held that Order P. 117/1956 did not stand transferred by virtue of Section 125 of the States Re-organisation Act. He, therefore, set aside the order of the District Munsiff and directed him to hear the petition and dispose it of according to law. He also directed that the District Munsiff may get back the records from the Court of the District Munsiff of Kasargod. In the meanwhile it must be stated that the District Munsiff of Kasargod had already dismissed the petition for default of appearance.

(3.) The Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order of the District Judge made in C. M. A. 13 of 1957. The main attack against the order is that the order of the District Munsiff appealed from was not one either making or refusing to make a complaint under Section 476 and hence was not appealable at all under Section 476- B. It is also contended that the District Court had no jurisdiction to decide the correctness or otherwise of an order made under the Slates Reorganisation Act. The first contention admits of no doubt whatever. The order of the District Munsiff was certainly not an order under Section 476. In fact, he has refused to act on the application on the ground that in his opinion it stood transferred to the District Munsiff's Court at Kasargod by virtue of Section 125 of the States Re-organisation Act. Such an order was not appealable under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This position is not contested by the learned Counsel for the respondent either. According to him it is unnecessary for him to canvass that position because the question whether O. P. 117/1956 on the file of the District Munsiff of Puttur did or did not stand transferred by virtue of Section 125 is a question which could not be decided by any subordinate court, but has to be decided only by this High Court He contends, now, that the question is brought before this High Court, it can and should decide the question. On the merits of the question he contends that the view taken by the District Munsiff is wrong and that taken by the District Judge is the correct one to take. While accepting the position that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court to decide a question under Section 125 of the States Re-organisation Act, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the High Court could do so only if the subordinate court makes a reference under Sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the States Re-organisation Act and not otherwise and that, therefore, at the highest all that this Court could do in the circumstances is to call for a reference from the appropriate subordinate Court. On the merits of the question he supports the view taken by the District Munsiff of Puttur.