PURNA CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. SHEIKH DHALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by six persons against an appellate order of the District Judge of Dacca affirming an order of the Munsif of that place passed under Section 476, Criminal P.C., lodging a complaint against the petitioners under Secs.209 and 120-B, I.P.C., and Secs.210 and 511 and 120-B, I.P.C. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the case I should like to make one observation; with regard to the scope of the rule issued by this Court. This application in revision does not lie under Section 439, Criminal P.C., inasmuch as it is not a matter connected with any proceedings before any inferior criminal Court within the meaning of Section 435, Criminal P.C. By an order made by the Chief Justice the Bench taking, criminal matters is authorized to receive and hear appeals and revision applications against orders passed under Secs.476, 476-A and 476-B, Criminal P.C., by civil Courts. If the revision application is not entertainable under Section 439, Criminal P.C., in such matters this Court can only interfere under Section 115, Civil P.C., or Section 107, Government of India Act : Emperor V/s. Har Prasad Das (1913) 40 Cal. 477. This rule being under Section 115, Civil P.C., is very much limited in its scope and we have not the freedom which we generally assume in dealing with criminal matters under Section 439, Criminal P.C. The order of the lower Court passed in appeal under Section 476-B, therefore can only be challenged for wrong, illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction, I refer to this matter as this feature of these cases is not generally kept in view when dealing with them along with cases under Section 439, Criminal P.C.

(2.) The facts out of which this matter arises are that the first petitioner Purna brought a suit for money against the opposite party Dhalu in the Munsif's Court at Dacca. The other petitioners were examined as witnesses in the case. The Munsif who heard the suit was of opinion that the bond on which the suit was brought was a forgery. An application was made by Dhalu inviting the Munsif who had disposed of the suit to take action under Section 476, Criminal P.C. The Munsif refused to pass any final order on that application on the ground that an appeal was then pending from his decree. After the disposal of the appeal affirming the decree of the trial Court that the bond was a forgery Dhalu again applied to the successor of the Munsif who had disposed of the suit for action under Section 476, Criminal P.C. The learned Munisif apparently went through the record of the case and made a complaint under Section 476, Criminal P.C. On appeal that order was affirmed by the District Judge.

(3.) Mr. Camell who appears for the petitioners has urged three points not one of which in my judgment is a point covered by Section 115, Civil P.C. The first point which has been strenuously pressed is that the Munsif not being the officer who had decided the suit should have held a further enquiry into this matter before making a complaint under Section 476, Criminal P.C. The section itself does not show that a further enquiry before making a complaint is imperative under the law. The section as it originally stood before its amendment in 1923 read: After making any preliminary enquiry that may he necessary.