AMBA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is filed against the order of the Dist. Magistrate Hyderabad City dated 28-11-1957 rejecting the objections taken by the petitioner herein to the said Dist. Magistrate proceeding with the complaint filed against the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar of this Court.

(2.) The facts out of which this revision has arisen are as follows: The petitioner filed a claim before the Claims Commissioner appointed by the Government under the provisions of the Indian Railways Act to enquire into and to decide the claims arising out of the railway accident which took place on 27-9-1954 at Jangaon. In this accident u large number of passengers travelling by train lost their lives. The petitioner claimed that he was the brother of one Hanumantharao who was a passenger on the train which was involved in this accident and that the said Hanuamantharao lost his life and belongings in this disaster. The Claims Commissioner who was vested with the jurisdiction of deciding the truthfulness and validity of all the claims arising out of this accident duly enquired into the claim put in by the petitioner and held that the petitioners claim was in order and accordingly allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 1950.00. This decision of the Commissioner became final and is not subject to any appeal. It is however conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had the claim been disallowed wholly or in part, he would have had a right of appeal to the High Court. In other words, while there is an appeal to the High Court against the order disallowing the claim wholly or in part, there is no right of appeal by the State against an order awarding compensation.

(3.) It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor in this case that it has come to light subsequent to the decision of the claims Commissioner in this case, that there are reasons to believe that the petitioners brother Hanumantharao did not, in fact, the in the accident, that he had met with natural death in his own village, that consequently the petitioners claim is a bogus claim which the petitioner sought to support by examining himself and other witnesses whose evidence, according to the Public Prosecutor, would be false evidence. He contends that if the premises relied on him is conceded, the petitioner must be deem-to have committed various offences involving cheating under Section 420 and 193 I. P. C. for giving false evidence and also For fabricating false evidence besides a criminal conspiracy to bring about a wrong decision by the Commissioner. Apparently on the basis of these allegations, the High Court was moved on the administrative side to make a complaint to the District Magistrate of Hyderabad under Section 476 Cri. P. C. to prosecute the petitioner for the above mentioned offences. Accordingly the High Court appears to have directed its Deputy Registrar by an order dated 29-11-1956 directing that a complaint be filed under Section 195 (IX) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In compliance with this direction the Deputy Registrar forwarded a complaint to the Chief City Magistrates Court at Hyderabad alleging in the complaint the facts relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor. In that complaint it is stated as follows: "It is seen from the above that neither Ambarao (petitioner) is a resident of Sumba Village nor his brother Hanumantharao died in the train accident on 27-9-1954, leaving behind him a minor son to the care of Ambarao Making the aforesaid false statement, Ambarao received Rs. 1800.00for loss of life and Rs. 150.00 for loss of property........." The petitioner complains that the High Court was not the court competent to file a complaint under Section 476 A read with Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code as the Claims Commissioner who decided the claim in this case was net a Subordinate Court to the High Court within the meaning of Section 195 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, that under Section 195(3), Criminal Procedure Code it is only in cases where a tribunal or Court could pass a decree or sentence that a superior court could file the complaint, that the High Court is not such a Court or the Railway Claims Commissioner such a Court and as the Railway Claims Commissioner has ceased to exist having been abolished in 1955, the present complaint by the High Court is incompetent. Sections 476A and 476 Criminal Procedure Code are as follows: Section 476A: "The power conferred on Civil, Revenue and Criminal Courts by section 476, Sub-section (1), may be exercised, in respect of any offence referred to therein and alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any such, court, by the Court to which such former court is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195, Sub-section (3) in any case in which such former court has neither made a complaint under Section 476 in respect of offences nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint; and, where the superior court makes such complaint, the provisions of Section 470 shall apply accordingly." "476 (1). When any civil. Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether on application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195 Sub-section (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court, such court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the court, and shall, forward the same to a Magistrate of the 1st class having jurisdiction and may take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged offence is non-bailable may, if it thinks necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate, and may bind over any person to appear & give evidence before such Magistrate: (Provided that, where the court making the complaint is a High Court, the complaint may be signed by such officer of the court as the court may appoint). For the purposes of this Sub-section, a Presidency Magistrate shall be deemed to be a Magistrate of the First Class. (2) Such magistrate shall thereupon proceed according to law and as if upon complaint made under Section 200. (3) Where it is brought to the notice of such Magistrate, or of any other Magistrate to whom the case may have been transferred, that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen, he may, if he thinks fit, at any stage adjourn the hearing of the case until such appeal is decided." Under the section the power conferred on a Court by Section 476 Sub-section (1) may be exercised by the court I to which such former court is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195 Sub-section (3).