EMPEROR Vs. CHAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge at Banda at lamirpur recommending that a commitnent made by a Magistrate to his Court should be quashed. The ground alleged is that no proper complaint was made under Section 476, Criminal P.C. The facts are that there was a suit for recovery of Rs. 13 before a panchayat consituted under the U.P. Village Panohayats Act, Act 6 of 1920. The panohayat were of opinion that tbe date in the promissory note on which the plaintiff relied had been altered in order to bring the suit within limitation and they made a report to the Collector. It is claimed by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that this report would constitute the complaint required by Section 476, Criminal P.C. Under that section the Court making a complaint "shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction." Now the report of the panohayat was not addressed to a Magistrate but to the Collector. It is true that the Collector is also the District Magistrate, but the Collector as Collector has certain authority over panohayats under Section 71, U.P. Village Panchayats Act. Under that section he may quash any proceedings of a panchayat at any stage or cancel any order or decree passed by a panchayat. Under Section 51 of the Act if any panchayat is of opinion that any suit or case before it is of such a nature or of such intricacy or importance that it ought to be tried by a regular Court, it shall stay proceedings and report the matter to the Collector for orders. The present reference does not come directly under either of these sections but apparently the panchayat considered that this was a matter in which the Collector should pass orders as Collector. It is further a fact that the report of the panohayat does not definitely amount to a complaint under Section 476 Criminal P. C. The report sets out the; facts and leaves the matter to the Collector to pass orders as to whether a complaint should be made and whether the plaintiff should be prosecuted,

(2.) The learned Assistant Government Advocate argues that this sentence meant that the District Magistrate was to pass orders for the trial of the case by some Magistrate having jurisdiction. But I do not think that this is what was intended. The panchayat apparently intended that the Collector should pass the necessary order under Section 476, Criminal P.C., which would constitute a complaint under that section. That was the sense in which the Collector interpreted the reference as his order of 6th February 1933, stated;

(3.) The Collector therefore considered that the matter was only at the stage of the enquiry under Section 476, Criminal P.C., and that the complaint had not yet been made. Accordingly an enquiry was made and the S.D.M. made a complaint on 31st March 1933. This is a formal complaint under Section 476, Criminal P.C., for the offences of Sections 467 and 471, I.P.C. The Magistrate begins his order by saying: