CHINAI Vs. MUKUNDRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHIUDDIN , A.J.C. 1. Mukundram moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rehli, by an application to file a complaint against Chinai and this application was rejected on 5th January 1929 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mr. G. P. Saraiya, declined to lodge a complaint. This was done under Section 476, Criminal P.C. Mukundram filed an appeal under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., in the Court of Sessions Judge, Saugor, who allowed the appeal, and filed a complaint which the Subordi-Court might have made under Section 476, Criminal P.C. Chinai has filed this appeal under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., and the learned Government Advocate has taken an objection to the effect that no appeal lies against the order of the Ses-Sessions Judge passed under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C. Chinai's learned pleader relies on a judgment of the Patna High Court in Ranjit Narain Singh v. Rambahadur Singh A.I.R. 1926 Pat. 81 and the learned Government Advocate cites the following cases in support of his contention: Somabhai Vallavbhai v. Aditbhai Parshottam A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 347 Muhammad Idris v. Emperor A.I.R. 1925 Lah. 322 and Ma On Khin v. N.K.M. Firm A.I.R. 1927 Rang. 313.

(2.) I have read carefully the reported cases on the subject and am of opinion that no appeal lies against the order passed by the appellate Court under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C. Great stress was laid on the following words in Section 476-B: "and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly," and it was argued that if the appellate Court files a complaint, it is a complaint under Section 476, Criminal P.C., and an appeal lies. The words: and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly," refer to the procedure laid down in Section 476, Criminal P.C., about the filing of such complaints and not to the act of making the complaint. The policy of the Criminal Procedure Code is not to allow two appeals in criminal matters, and, if the construction put by the Patna High Court is accepted, there would be two appeals under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C. Section 476B, Criminal P.C., does not seem to provide for a second appeal. As pointed out by Martineau, J., in Muhammad Idris v. Emperor A.I.R. 1925 Lah. 322: Section 476-B of the Code gives a right of appeal only when a Court has made or refused to make a complaint under Section 476 or Section 476-A, and neither of those sections relates to a complaint made by a Court on appeal from an order of a subordinate Court refusing to make a complaint.

(3.) THIS Court will exercise its revisional powers in suitable cases where justice demands it, but no good case is made out for interference in revision in this case. The learned Sessions Judge has given good reasons in his order dated 4th March 1929 why a complaint should be filed and in my opinion the order is correct. The appeal is dismissed.