GIRIJA NANDA KALI MITTER Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an order of the Munsif of Basirhat, First Court, passed tinder Section 476 of the Criminal P. C., sending the case against the petitioner to the Sub-Divisional Officer for enquiry or trial for committing offences punishable under sections 463 and 471. Indian Penal Code. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the decision of this Rule, are as follows: The petitioner is alleged to have presented two petitions before the Moharrir in charge of rent-suits in the Munsif's Court asking for the return of the documents filed by one Bhiku Gagi in two rent-suits. These two petitions purported to have been signed by Babu Probodh Chunder Ghose, who was the Pleader of Bhiku Gagi in those rent-suits. These signatures of the Pleader have been held by the Munsif to be forgeries. The only point for our consideration is a purely technical one and that is, whether the Munsif had jurisdiction to take action under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. Under that section, a Civil Court can only send for enquiry or trial cases of offences referred to in Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, and committed before it or brought under its notice in the course of a judicial proceeding. We think we must read this section to mean that the words "committed before it" are qualified by the words "in the course of a judicial proceeding." Taking this view, it appears to us that it cannot be held that these petitions were filed in the course of a judicial proceeding. The rent-suits in which the documents were filed had been finally disposed of and there was nothing pending before the Munsif, neither the original suits nor subsequent proceedings in execution. The definition of, judicial proceeding is given in Clause (m) of Section 4 of the Code as including any proceeding in the course of which evidence is, or maybe legally taken on oath. Having regard, to the provisions of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, it appears; that no question can arise on an application for return of documents which would necessitate the taking of evidence on oath. On an application being made by a party, the documents are necessarily returned if the application is in the proper form and the act is purely ministerial. As we have said, in the present case the petitions were filed not before the Munsif but before the Moharrir. Had the Moharrir reported that the applications were in proper form orders would have been; passed by the Court as a matter of course. Taking this view, we hold that there were no judicial proceedings before the Munsif at the time these petitions, alleged to be forged were filed and that consequently, the Munsif had no jurisdiction to take action under Section 478, Criminal Procedure Code. We accordingly set aside the order-of the Munsif1 dated the 28 of July 1921 and quash any proceedings that may have been taken on the strength of that order.