CHIMATA RANGAYYA Vs. GUNTUPALLI RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I fail to see any illegality or impropriety in the order made by the learned District Judge affirming the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, directing the laying of a complaint against the first petitioner for offences under Sections 193, 196, 465 and 471 I. P. C. and (or offences under Sections 465, 193 and 196 read with Section 109 I. P. C. against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners.

(2.) The two points taken in this revision petition are : (1) that the District Munsif has acted without jurisdiction in laying a complaint in the exercise of his powers under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code because the appropriate provision of law applicable to this case is Sub-section 5 of Section 479-A, and in such a case, action under Section 476 is prohibited by Sub-section 6 of Section 479-A, Cr. P.C. and (2) that in the circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the long lapse of time, the courts below have erred in holding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to launch a prosecution against the petitioners.

(3.) As regards the first point, I am clearly of opinion that Sub-section 5 of Section 479-A has no application to the facts of this case and consequently the prohibition contained in Sub-section 6 of that section is not attracted. The judgment in O. S. 455 of 1947 was delivered by the District Munsiff on 21-12-1948. It was in that suit that the "hand-letter" Ex. A. 5, the alleged forged document, was filed to support the case of the plaintiff therein (the 1st petitioner in this Crl. R. C.).The appeal from that judgment was disposed of by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in A. S. No. 318 of 1949 by his judgment dated 6-7-1950. The second appeal from that judgment (Second Appeal No. 505 of 1950) was disposed of by the Andhra High Court on 2-3-1956.