Y.P. VARMA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Y.P. Verma, Barrister-at-law and advocate, was fined Rs. 50 by the Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, under Section 480(1), Criminal P.C., and his appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Division. He has now filed a revision application in this Court. The facts as set out by the Deputy Commissioner in his order were that when the revenue appeal in question was called, the applicant entered the Deputy Commissioner's Court and greeted him with the words "Good Morning". When the Deputy Commissioner told him that he should show respect to the Court by addressing him as "Sir", the applicant declared that he was not in the habit of saying "Sir" to any Court. This remark in the view of the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner constituted an offence such as is described in Section 228, Penal Code.

(2.) AT the time of arguments, the learned Advocate General raised a preliminary objection to the effect that this Court was not competent to entertain the application as neither the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat nor that of the Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Division, was a Criminal Court. This objection must prevail. The words "take cognizance" in Sub-section (1) of Section 480, Criminal P.C., merely indicate that a Civil or Revenue Court has been given additional ad hoc powers and not that it loses its identity as a Civil or Revenue Court. This conclusion is borne out by the structure of Section 486 ibid, the provisions of which would not have been necessary if a Civil or a Revenue Court was regarded as a Criminal Court. Sections 476-479, Criminal P.C., also deal with Civil, Revenue and Criminal Courts and Stanyon A.J.C.'s decision in Shankar Rao v. Shaik Daud (08) 4 N.L.R. 140 was overruled by a Division Bench which held in Babulal v. Emperor A.I.R. 1920 Nag. 146 that an order passed by a Civil Court under Section 476, Criminal P.C., can be revised only under Section 115, Civil P.C., and not under Section 439, Criminal P.C. In Maneklal v. Emperor A.I.R. 1920 Nag. 249 Kotval A.J.C. was of the view that a High Court has no power either under Section 115, Civil P.C., or under Section 439, Criminal P.C., to revise an order passed by a Revenue Court under Section 476, Criminal P.C., directing the trial of a person for an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The decision reached in Babulal v. Emperor A.I.R. 1920 Nag. 146 was followed by Pollock J., in Bholanath v. Achheram A.I.R. 1937 Nag. 91 and in Ganpatappa v. Emperor 1942 N.L.J. 242 Niyogi J., endorsing the view of Kotval A.J.C., in Maneklal v. Emperor A.I.R. 1920 Nag. 249, made the following observations: