EMPEROR Vs. HAR PRASAD DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question has arisen on a rule issued by us to show cause why an order made under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the Shahabad district should not be set aside, whether the Criminal Bench has jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of Civil and Revenue Courts made under that section. The rulings are very conflicting on the point and it seems necessary to have the matter settled by a Full Bench. The difficulty has been got over on more than one occasion by the appointment of a Special Bench by the Chief Justice to hear such applications, but it is obvious that this causes unnecessary delay and embarrassment to applicants, and there seems to be no reason why the matter should not be settled once for all.

(2.) Our own view of the matter in a recent case was that there was no question as regards the jurisdiction of the High Court in sanctions under Section 195. There it is expressly laid down that any sanction given or refused under this section may be revoked or granted by any authority to which the authority giving or refusing it is subordinate, and in the case of an Assistant Settlement Officer the Special Judge would in the first instance deal with the matter, and in the event of its going further, the Civil Bench of the group to which the case belonged. It is the settled practice in this Court to treat cases under Section 195 by way of appeal, and no question as to the revisional powers of the Court or the powers under the Charter arises.

(3.) But under Section 476 the matter is on a wholly different footing. To begin with there is a conflict whether the High Court in dealing with orders under Section 476 acts under its revisional powers by virtue of Section 439 or whether it only interferes under Section 15 of the Charter. The most recent practice has been to discourage references from District Judges, on the ground that such orders could not be dealt with in revision, and District Judges have uniformly refused to refer such questions to us and have directed the aggrieved party to move this Court direct.