ADARI GANGUNAIDU Vs. LAKKOJU NARAYANAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.R.C. No. 374 of 1956 : This is a Criminal Revision against the Order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchilli, to re-entertain Crl. M.P. No. 21 of 1956 and dispose of it on merits in accordance with law. Crl.R.C. No. 508 of 1956 is a revision against the Order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchilli, in Crl.M.P. No. 2 of 1956 rejecting the petition. The petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 21 of 1956 filed the said petition in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchilli, against the respondents requesting the Court to file a complaint against them under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner alleged that the 1st respondent gave a written complaint falsely accusing the petitioner of house-breaking arid robbery of gold jewels in his house on 26th January, 1955 to the 2nd respondent, the Village Munsif of Ganaparti, who, with the knowledge that the allegations were not true, prepared his crime reports and sent them to the appropriate authorities, who filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner under section 392, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution and discharged the petitioner on 23rd September, 1955. The petitioners case was that the respondents, in view of factions in the village, made a false charge against him maliciously with a view to harass him and that, therefore, it was a fit case for filing a complaint against the respondents under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchilli, had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition on the ground that the Court of the Judicial First Glass Magistrate, Yellamanchilli, was neither the same Court nor the successor Court to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate wherein the original complaint was filed and which discharged the petitioner. The Judicial First Class Magistrate accepted the preliminary objection and without going into the merits, held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The petitioner thereafter filed Crl.M.P. No. 62 of 1956 in the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, under section 476 read with section 195 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge held that the Jucicial First Class Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the petition and directed him to take it on file and dispose of it in accordance with law. The present revision is filed against the said order.

(2.) The substantial question in this case is whether the Judicial First Class Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner under section 4.76, Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of an offence alleged to have beeti committed by the respondents in relation to C.C. No. 26 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, Yellamanchilli. Section 476 (I) reads :-

(3.) Under this section, if an offence referred to in section 195, sub-section (I), clause (b) or clause (c) is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in a Court, the Court wherein such offence has been committed is authorised to make a complaint in respect of the said offence. It is manifest from the aforesaid provisions and it is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents-that a Court other than the Court wherein the offence is committed cannot make such a complaint. The question, therefore, is whether the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate is the same Court or successor Court to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which discharged the petitioner.