SHIVA PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Judicial Officer, Kotwali, Kanpur.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that one Jagannath Prasad filed a civil suit against accused No. 1 in the Court of the learned 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur, for recovery of some money. That suit was transferred later to the Court of the learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur. The suit was contested by accused No. 1, who claimed adjustment of Rs. 2,000/alleged to have been paid on 20th February, 1959 to Jagannath Prasad. In that connection and, in proof of his case accused No. 1 filed a letter, which was Ex. A. 23 and which was alleged to have been written by Jagannath Prasad. Jagannath Prasad, however, denied having written any such letter or having sent it to accused No. 1. The parties were allowed to lead evidence and, after considering the evidence, the learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur, found Ex. A. 23 to be a forged document, which was used by accused No. 1 for the purposes of the case. He, therefore, directed a complaint to be filed against both the accused persons. The learned Addl. Civil Judge directed a complaint to be filed against the two accused on an application filed by Jagannath Prasad. Accordingly a complaint was filed and that complaint came up for hearing before the learned Judicial Officer, Kotwali, Kanpur, where an objection was filed on behalf of the accused that the complaint was not entertainable as the learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge did not follow the provisions of Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judicial Officer, Kanpur, by his order dated 4th December, 1967 held that the complaint was Under Section 471, IPC and was maintainable and dismissed the application filed by the accused. Against the order passed by the learned Judicial Officer the present revision has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Sri, K. N. Seth, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, and Sri V. P. Goel, learned brief holder for the State. The learned Counsel for the State has raised three preliminary objections. His first objection is that since the applicants did not file any appeal or revi vision against the order of the learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge, ordering a complaint to be filed against them, this revision is not entertainabfe by this Court, I have given careful thought to the objection of the learned Counsel for the State but I find no force in it. Under Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has got very wide powers and it may be a rule of practice that before approaching this Court in a revision the applicant should have filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge but the mere fact that the applicants have come directly to this Court will not make the revision incompetent. I am supported in this view by the observations of a learned single Judge of this Court in Municipal Board v. Bhim Singh, in which it was held as follows: