D MAYAVANSHI Vs. K S PAWRI IGP GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an interesting question of law whether a Single Judge of this Court could be deemed to be subordinate to the Division Bench of this Court for the purpose envisaged in sec. 476B of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under:-

(2.) The present appellant joined the service in the State of Gujarat on 1st July 1963 as a direct recruit to the post of Police Sub-Inspector. He was posted at Junagadh and several other places. On 19th December 1966 he was served with a charge sheet dated 14th December 1966. The charge under the said charge sheet was in respect of a private inland letter dated 14th January 1965 alleged to have been written by the present appellant to his friend Punjabhai. This letter was sent to the Vigilance Commission which entrusted the inquiry to the C. I. D. Gujarat State. On the recommendation of the C.I.D. a departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and ultimately he was exonerated of the charge on 20 April 1967. The present appellant thereafter continued in service upto 27th January 1969 and was discharged from service. He thereupon filed a writ petition before this Court against the said order of discharge. In that writ petition an affidavit was filed by the Inspector General of Police denying several averments made in the said writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court after hearing both the parties. Thereafter the present appellant gave an application under sec. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting the Court to make a complaint against the Inspector General of Police under secs. 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code for making false statements in the affidavit filed in special civil application No. 1598 of 1969. The said application came up for admission hearing before our learned brother Thakkar J. who rejected the same in limine by his order dated 27th August 1970.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order this appeal has been preferred to this Bench.