LAL BIHARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a petition of complaint filed by the Additional Collector, Patna, these petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for offences under Sections 468, 371, 193 of the Indian PenaJ code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The said petition of complaint was filed because it was discoverd that during the hearing of a mutation appeal before the Additional Collector, these petitioners had filed forged and fabricated carbon copy of Jamabandi. According to the petitioners, the Additional Collector while hearing a mutation proceeding will not be deemed to be a 'Court' within the meaning of section 340 or sub-section (3) of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), and as such, he had no jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding for the prosecution of the petitioners as contemplated by the aforesaid sections.

(2.) It appears that these petitioners had filed a petition before the Deputy Collector Jncharge Land Reforms, Patna, for grant of rent receipts in respect of certain lands, details whereof were mentioned in that petition. One Manju Sinha filed an objection to the petition saying that the entries in Register II have been wrongly made in favour of these petitioners and that they should be corrected. The Deputy Collector, Incharge Land Reforms, heard both the parties and by his order dated 12-12-1972 ordered for correction of Register II in favour of the said Manju Sinha, rejecting the application for grant of receipt filed on behalf of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by that order, these petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Patna. The Additional Collector, however, allowed the said appeal by his order, dated 27-7-1973. In support of their claim, the petitioners had produced a carbon copy of the Jamabandi before the Additional Collector. The aforesaid Manju filed a revision before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. By his order dated 21-5-1974, while allowing the revision application and setting aside the order of the Additional Collector, the Additional Commissioner, Patna, recorded a finding that one of the petitioners had filed a false affidavit and these petitioners had filed a forged carbon copy of Jamabandi before the Additional Collector to support their case, and, as such, they were liable to be prosecuted. The Additional Commissioner, however, directed the Additional Collector, Patna, to initiate prosecution against these petitioners. In view of this order, the compliant in question was filed and the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for having committed an offence -referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195 of the Code.

(3.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners if it is held that the Additional Collector while hearing a dispute in respect of mutation and correction of Register II is not a 'Court' within the meaning of sections 340 [and 195 of the Code then the filing of the complaint and the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners is wholly without jurisdiction and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.