HARI CHARAN KUNDU Vs. KAUSHI CHARAN DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule arises with reference to a complaint filed against the petitioner and another person in the Court of the learned Sub-divisional Officer of Khulna with a view to their prosecution under Secs.465, 467, 471 and 193, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was a co- mortgagee in respect of certain property and he had applied to a Debt Settlement Board under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, for the settlement of the debt owing to him. The allegation against him is to the effect that, in collusion with another person, he forged the thumb impressions of his co-mortgagees on the application. The debtor then filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Sub-divisional Officer of Khulna with a view to the prosecution of the petitioner and the person who is alleged to have assisted him in the forgery, but the learned Magistrate discharged both the accused persons on the ground that the Debt Settlement Board must be regarded as a "Court" and there had been no compliance with the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) and (c), Criminal P.C. He further held that the prosecution must fail on account of non-compliance with the terms of Section 54, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The learned Sessions Judge of Khulna was then moved in the matter. He adopted the view that the Debt Settlement Board could not be regarded as a "Court" within the meaning of Section 195, Criminal P.C., and that accordingly no complaint under Section 195 (1)(b) and (c) was necessary in this case. He also held that Section 54, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, had no application in respect of the offences in connexion with which it was sought to prosecute the accused persons. He therefore directed a further enquiry into the case.

(2.) This Court has now been moved under Section 439, Criminal P.C., and it is contended on behalf of the petitioner (1) that the Board must be regarded as a "Court" and this being the ease, the proposed prosecution is invalid in the absence of a complaint by the Board under Section 195, Criminal P.C., and (2) that, even if it be assumed that the Board is not a "Court," the sanction of the Collector was necessary under Section 54, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, before a prosecution could be instituted. In this connexion it is argued that, under the provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, Debt Settlement Boards possess all the essential attributes of "Courts." It is pointed out that, under Section 12 of the Act, the applicant may be examined on oath or affirmation, that under Section 16, the Board is vested with the powers of a Civil Court under the Civil P. C. in connexion with the summoning and examining of parties and witnesses and the production of documents and that further, under Section 18 of the Act, a Board may determine questions relating to the existence and amount of debts "after hearing the parties and considering the evidence produced." It is further contended that Boards are empowered to make final orders regarding the amount of the debts recoverable from debtors and that the Act contains provisions under which the awards of a Debt Settlement Board may be executed. Machinery has also been provided by which appeals may be filed against orders of a Board and under Section 50 it has been pro-vided that proceedings under the Act should foe deemed to be judicial proceedings under Section 228, Indian Penal Code. In support of the contention that Debt Settlement Boards are "Courts" reliance is also placed upon the definition of the term "Court" in the Evidence Act which is in the following terms : "Court" includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence. This definition is however not very helpful in connexion with the present case because the definition of the word "Court" in the Evidence Act has been framed only for the purposes of that Act which, under Section 45, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, has no application to Debt Settlement Boards in the absence of express provision to that effect. The Criminal P. C. contains no definition of the expression "Court" but it is provided in Section 4(2) of the Code that all words and expressions used herein and defined in the Indian Penal Code, and not hereinbefore defined, shall be deemed to have the meanings respectively attributed to them by that Code.

(3.) The only Court which is defined in the Indian Penal Code is a "Court of Justice" and the definition is in the following terms: The words Court of Justice denote a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially.