RAMCHARAN DAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 476-B of the Criminal P. C. against an order of the District Judge of Mainpuri directing the appellant to be prosecuted under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of certain false statements. The first point to consider in this case is what are the duties of an appellate Court in cases in which an order is made by the lower Court directing the prosecution of any one. Section 476-B has been enacted by Act 18 of 1923, and the same Act has omitted original Sub-section 6 of Section 195, which gave the appellate Court power of reviewing an order granting sanction, or an order by a Court instituting a complaint. Chapter 31 of the Criminal P. C. lays down the ordinary procedure and powers relating to appeals against convictions or acquittals. Section 476-B empowers the appellate Court in appeal to direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or in oases where the first Court has refused to complain, may itself make a complaint. I am of opinion that the legislature intended that the appellate Court, in oases of appeals under Section 476-B of the Criminal P. C., should reconsider the entire matter on the merits, and while allowing reasonable weight to the opinion of the Court below, should nevertheless reconsider the question of the propriety of the order appealed against) upon a complete review of the entire facts. If the appellate Court is not satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, the order appealed against must be set aside. The words "offence which appears to have been committed" seem to me to have been used by the legislature to mean that the facts before the Court unless rebutted, show that an offence has been committed.

(2.) Now coming to the facts of the case, on the 18 of October, 1924, one Shiam Lal brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 134 on a bond dated the 18 of April, 1920 in the Court of the Munsif of Shikohabad. Tee Munsarim of the Munsif's Court, in the ordinary course of business, reported that the bond on which the suit was based had the words "chhah mah." after the words "ek sal," and that the former words appeared to be written in a different ink. Ha further reported if one year was the stipulated period the suit was not within time. On the office report being brought to the notice of the learned pleader for the plaintiff, he made a statement which appears to me not to contest the Munsarim's report. the Munsif directed the plaintiff to appear before him personally on the 25 of October. On the 24tih of October a compromise was filed in Court in which it was stated that the defendant had paid the entire money sued upon, and the plaintiff admitted having received the money from the defendant, and the plaintiff did not claim his costs. On the 25 of October this application was verified by both parties.

(3.) It appears that the Munsif was very surprised that the defendant who had contracted the original loan on the 18 of April, 1920, should have at once satisfied the plaintiff's claim after the plaint had been filed.