HARBANS LAL BALI Vs. KULBHUSHAN BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Addl. Sessions Judge Srinagar recommending that the proceedings taken by the C. J. M. Srinagar be quashed and the complaint filed by the non-applicant. Kulbhushan, before him be dismissed. The reference arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) ON 11. 11. 1970 the non-applicant Kulbhushan filed a complaint under Sections 199 and 200 R. P. C. against Harbans Lal alleging that the accused persons had given false declaration before the Tehsildar while he was making mutations in respect of the land referred to In the complaint. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and after perusing the documents and the summary of the evidence given before him. found that a prima facie case under Sections 199/200 of the Ranbir P. C. was made out against the accused, and accordingly he issued warrants of arrest against them. The case was then transferred for disposal to the Judge. Small Causes Court. Srinagar. The accused went up in revision to the Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that as the offences under Sections 199/200 Ranbir P. C. alleged to have been committed by them were committed before the Tehsildar who was a Court within the meaning of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Criminal P. C. therefore the complaint could not be entertained unless it was made by the Court concerned. The contention raised by the accused appears to have found favour with the Addl. Sessions Judge who has made a reference for quashing the proceedings against the accused, on the ground that as the complaint had not been filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Criminal P. C. the trial Court had no jurisdiction to take any cognizance of the offences. The learned Judge has mainly relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Har Prasad v. Hans Raj We might mention here that when the Sessions Judge called for an explanation from the trial Court it explained that the decision In. (Supra) was distinguishable and as the mutation proceedings were conducted by a Tehsildar who was only a Revenue Officer and not a revenue Court therefore he was not barred from taking cognizance of the case. In view of the fact that the point involved a substantial question of law, it was referred by me to a Division Bench and the case has therefore, been heard by us.

(3.) THE main point that falls for determination in this case is as to whether a Tehsildar conducting mutation proceedings under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act can be said to be a revenue Court within the meaning of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Criminal P. C. read with Section 476 of the Code.