BANWARI LAL Vs. JHUNKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision from an order passed on appeal directing the prosecution of the applicant under Secs.193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant filed a suit on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant and also produced a receipt purporting to be of the same date. The defendant denied the genuineness of these documents and denied that he had ever borrowed any money from the plaintiff. The promissory note and receipt were sent to the thumb-impression expert at the instance of the plaintiff, but the report received from the expert was that the impressions were too blurred to be decipherable. The plaintiff then stated before the Court that if the defendant took an oath on the Ganges water that he had not borrowed the money from the plaintiff he would agree to the suit being dismissed. The defendant agreed to take the oath. On the oath being taken by the defendant the Court without going into any further evidence dismissed the suit, Neither the plaintiff nor any witnesses on his behalf were examined. After the dismissal of the suit the defendant applied to the trial Court for proceedings being taken against the plaintiff under Section 193 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as he had verified the plaint and filed documents which were said to be forged. The trial Court declined to pass any such order. On appeal the learned Judge has reversed the order,

(2.) As the case would be merely one of oath against oath without any conclusive documentary evidence to prove that the pro note and the receipt were forgeries I might have been inclined to interfere in revision on the criminal side if the application were, as it purports to be, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the other hand if this is a proceeding of a civil nature and my power of revision is confined to the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure I would find it absolutely impossible to interfere, as there is neither any want of jurisdiction nor any irregularity nor illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction.

(3.) I have, therefore, to consider whether a revision from an order passed under Section 476-B by the superior Court relates to a proceeding within the meaning of Section 439 of the Criminal P. C..