PHANINDAR SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling on the Collector of Patna and also on the opposite party to show cause why the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer of Barh, on the 29th October, 1912, directing proceedings to be drawn up against the petitioner, under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside, on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction.

(2.) It appears that, on a complaint by One Rucktoo Singh, a proceeding was instituted against the petitioner under Clause (3) of Section 58 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Collector of Patna transferred the case to the Subdivisional Officer of Barh. This officer passed an order on the 14th October, 1912. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Subdivisional Officer two other applications were made by two other tenants, similar to the one made by Rucktoo Singh; and Rucktoo Singh also pat in another before this officer: whereupon an order was passed to this effect: "Notice has already been served. File." During the proceedings under Section 58 the petitioner put in a number of counterfoils, in order to show that he had, as a matter of fact, on receipt of rent from the tenants, made over to them printed receipts. The Sub-divisional Officer came to the conclusion that these counterfoils were forged documents; and he thereupon recorded a proceeding, on the 14th October, 1912, under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) An application was made to this Court, on the ground that this order for prosecution was ultra vires, inasmuch as the Subivisional Officer had no jurisdiction in the matter, and it was also pointed out that the Collector of Patna had no jurisdiction to transfer the enquiry into the complaint of Rucktoo Singh to the Subdivisional Officer of Barh; thereupon this Rule was issued.