TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. NIAMAT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has asked for quashing of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. Delhi, dated the 12th June 1958 passed on a reference made to him under the proviso to section 9 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954. The said proviso is in the following terms :-

(2.) The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that under the proviso to section 9 of the said Act only the District Judge could be nominated and not the Additional District Judge as was done in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner refered to sections 18 to 20 of the Punjab Courts Act and submitted that the only categories recognised by the said provisions as they then stood were District Judges, Additional District Judges and Subordinate Judges, According to the learned counsel there can beonly one District Judge in a district as provided in section 20 of the said Act and by virtue of section 24 thereof it is the Court of District Judge alone which is deemed to be the District Court or principal Court of original jurisdiction in the district. He further argued that Additional District Judge, who was nominated under the provisKo to section 9 of t Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, was a category unknown to law and could not have been in contemplation of the said proviso. The Punjab Courts Act was amended by the Punjab Courts (Amendment) Act, 1963 (Punjab Act No. 35 of 1963), By section 2 of the said Amending Act the words "(2) The Court of the Additional Judge" insection 18 were omitted. Bysection 5 thereof a new section 21 was substituted for the existing section and power was given to the State Government to appoint Additional District Judges in consultation with the High Court for exercising jurisdiction in one or more Courts of the District Judges. Sub-section (2) of section 21 as substituted provides that the Additional District Judges shall have jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of such cases only as the High Court, by general or special order, may direct them to deal with and dispose of or as the District Judge of the District may make over to them for being dealt with and deposed of. According to the learned counsel the said amendment Act not being restrospective did not cure the invalidity of the notification under section 9 of the Act. He also submitted that in spite of the amendment the Additional District Judge could not have been appointed because section 9 requires only a District Judge to be nominated. The learned counsel has relied on Kuldip Singh v. The State of Punjab and Abdul Wahab v. Phiraya Lal. In Kuldip Singh's case Ss. 476-A and 195, Cr, Procedure Code fell for consideration. Section 476-A, Criminal Procedure Code, inter alia provides that when the Court in which the offence is said to have been committed neither makes a complaint nor rejects an application for the making of a complaint" the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of section 195, sub-section (3)" may take action under section 476. The question was whether the Additional District Judge, had the jurisdiction to take action under section 476-A, Criminal Procedure Code, the original Court not having taken any. The answer to that question depended upon whether the Court of Additional District Judge was a Court to which appeals from the original Court "ordinarily lie" as provided in section 195(3), Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that such Court could only be the District Judge's Court and not of the Additional District Judge. After considering various provisions of the Punjab Courts Act referred to above Bose J. observed-

(3.) On 2nd January, 1957, that is the date of nomination, there was District Judge in Delhi and under section 20 of the Punjab Courts Act there could be only one District Judge in -a district. That District Judge alone could have been nominated under section 9 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. In view of the above, finding it must be held that the nomination of Shri (now Hon'ble Mr. Justice) P. D. Sharma was invalid and he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the said reference. The impugned order was, therefore, without jurisdiction and must to set aside. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the order, dated 12th June, 1958, passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, quashed. Parties will bear their own costs.