SHYAM BEHARI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant made an application to the District Judge of Moradabad dated the 30th January 1954 which was received by post. The substance of the application was that the Amin of the court of munsif, Sambhal, had committed certain irregularities in connection with execution of a warrant of attachment in suit No. 420 of 1950. The application stated that at first an attachment had been affected of certain goods belonging to the applicant (who was the judgment -debtor in the suit) but that, after the attachment, the entire decretal amount had been realised from the wife of the judgment -debtor and nonetheless all the attached articles were taken away by the Amin. There were other allegations of irregularity. A similar application was made to the court of the munsif also. The learned District Judge asked the learned munsif to make a non judicial inquiry. The learned munsif submitted a report along with the record of the statements taken by him and upon a perusal of the same the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the complaint made by the applicant was false and that the applicant knew and believed that the information he was giving to the District Judge was false and he had given that information intending to cause or knowing it likely that harm would be caused to the Amin, Sri Prakash Chandra. The present complaint was therefore made under Section 182 of the IPC and was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Moradabad, for such action against the applicant, Shiam Behari Lal, as was deemed necessary. It is from that order that the applicant Shiam Behari La! has preferred this appeal which was filed under Section 476 -B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) UNDER Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure no court can rake cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 182 of the IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. Section 195(1)(b) and Section 195(1)(c) of the Code indicates that prosecution for certain offences of the Code against public justice cannot be made except on the complain in writing of the court concerned. When an order is made under Section 195(1)(b) or Section 195(1)(c) of the Code, then it has to be in accordance with Section 476 of the Code which indicates that a complaint under Section 195, Sub -section (1) Clause (b) or (c) can be made only when, in the opinion of the court, it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Shiam Behari Lal has shown me the recorded statements on the side of the Amin 1, Prakash Chandra and on the side of the complainant, Shiam Behari Lal. I was prepared to examine the statements to express my view in regard to them but Mr. Misra stated that inasmuch as I had indicated that I would not interfere I should not examine the statements in detail because that might prejudice the case of his client. I have acceded to this request particularly as the statements are at present not on oath, and I do rot desire to prejudice either side but I would like to state that it would be the duty of the trial court to deal with the case according to law and the trial court must consider itself to be not in any way bound by any expression of opinion, direct or implied, by me or by the District Judge. The trial Court must try the case itself and come to its own independent conclusion on the evidence adduced before it.