EMPEROR Vs. SUNDAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which this application for revision has arisen, are as follows: Mr. Parmanand Singh, Tahsildar of Basti, as Magistrate of the third class, tried in 1921 a criminal case in which Adhar Singh made a complaint against Devi Bakhsh Singh under the provisions of Section 352/447 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of the trial, Sundar Lal, patwari, gave evidence. As a result of the examination of this evidence, Mr. Parmanand Singh came to the conclusion that Sundar Lal was not telling the truth in his evidence, and that he had falsified certain of his records. Mr. Parmanand Singh did not complete the decision of the case, for, after he had heard practically all the evidence, the case was transferred for decision to the court of Mr. Sarju Prasad, Honorary Magistrate, by an order of the District Magistrate of Basti. There is nothing before me to show why the order of transfer was passed. Such order was, however, passed and the case left Mr. Parmanand on the 3 of September, 1921. Mr. Sarju Prasad decided it on the 7th of October, 1921. He acquitted the accused persons and found that the patwari, Sundar Lal, was telling the truth, and that the entries in his records were correct. Mr. Parmanand then proceeded to make a preliminary inquiry into the truth of the patwari's statements in the case in question, and into the nature of the entries in the patwari's records to which I have already referred. He appears to have lost no time in sending for the patwari and to have made a careful inquiry, in which the patwari was given every opportunity of meeting the charges. He finally passed an order under Section 476 of the Criminal P. C. and sent Sundar Lal, patwari, to the District Magistrate to be tried on certain charges. This order is dated the 25 of January, 1922. Sundar Lal applies in revision to have the order set aside.

(2.) The points taken by the learned Counsel who represents Sundar Lal, are: That Mr. Parmanand Singh having ceased to be seised of the case on the 3 of September, 1921 had no jurisdiction to pass the order which he passed, and that, on the merits, the offences suggested have clearly not been committed upon the finding of Mr. Sarju Prasad.

(3.) The plea raises a question which, as far as I know, has not been decided by any court so far. If a court is of opinion that there is ground for inquiry into any offence referred to in Section 195 of the Criminal P. C. committed before it in the course of a judicial proceeding, even if the case has passed out of the hands of that court and been decided by another court, it cannot be held that the first court's powers under Section 476 of the Criminal P. C. came to an end.