HARBANS SINGH Vs. JOGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by one Harbans Singh. It was filed through Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Advocate, who has since died. Actual date notice was sent to the petitioner. As per office report, he has refused to accept service. The petition is thus being decided in the absence of the petitioner.

(2.) ON the death of the Lambardar in village Khumna, district Patiala, the parties herein, being the petitioner and the respondent, laid claim to the office. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade/Naib Tehsildar, Amloh, recorded evidence of the respective claims of both the parties for the said post, as he was required to send a report to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nabha, who had in turn to make his report to the Collector, Patiala for finally deciding the matter. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade took from both the parties signed representations bearing signatures and thumb impressions of the persons supporting each of them. According to the respondent the petitioner had forged the representation in his favour which purported to bear false thumb impressions/signatures of 4/5 persons, whose names were mentioned ultimately in the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner for offences under sections 464/466/474, Indian Penal Code. The afore referred to four or five persons gave their affidavits to the Assistant Collector lInd Grade that they had never signed or thumb marked the said representation in favour of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Nabha, did not recommend the name of the of the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar. And finally, the Collector did not appoint him to the said post. It is in these circumstances that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and he was supported in that regard by the afore referred to four or five persons. The accused-petitioner was summoned in the complaint to face trial. He raised objection to the maintainability of the complaint on the strength of section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure. The objection found favour with the trial Magistrate, who took the view that section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code was a bar to the institution of the complaint, inasmuch as the Revenue Officer alone was competent to file such a complaint. This view was reversed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, taking the view that the Assistant Collector IInd Grade was only making a recommendation with regard to the appointment of a Lambardar and as such had received the representation supportive of the case of the petitioner only as a Revenue Officer and not as a Court. And on that basis, the learned Judge took the view that Section 195(i)(b)(ii) was not applicable. It is to challenge this view that this petition has been filed.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.