BABULAL KRIPARAM PARWAR Vs. KISANSAO ADKUSAO KALAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present applicant who was a creditor before the Debt Conciliation Board at Ramtek moved that Board to prosecute the debtors for perjury because they had given a false list of their property. The Board refused to prosecute, and the-creditor appealed to the District Judge, Nagpur, who has held that the Debt Conciliation Board is a Court within the meaning of Section 195, Criminal P.C., but a Revenue Court, not a civil one; hence no appeal from an order passed by it under Section 195 would lie to the revenue side. Secondly, it is held that by virtue of Section 18, Debt Conciliation Act, no appeal at all did lie. On the first point there is undoubtedly good authority for the view that the expression "Court" in Section 195 is of wide scope and includes more than the expression "Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court" in Section 476: see Kanhaiya Lal v. Bhagwan Das (1926) 18 AIR All 30 and Bilas Singh v. Emperor (1925) 12 AIR All 737. Section 195(2), Criminal P.C., now reads: In Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) the term 'Court' includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, etc.

(2.) FORMERLY , this Section read: "the term 'Court' means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, etc." The change is significant. It is to be noted too that under Section 24-A, Debt Conciliation Act, all proceedings under the Act shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings. I therefore agree that the Board had power to pass an order under Section 195,. Criminal P.C. It seems to me, however, that there are difficulties in the way of classifying the Board either as a Civil or as a Revenue Court. As pointed out by the applicant the object of the Debt Conciliation Act is to relieve agriculturists from indebtedness, and arrears of land revenue are excluded from the definition of debt. The Board then has nothing to do with revenue matters. The Chairman and the members would not come within the list of revenue officers given in the Land Revenue Act, nor of course are they Subordinate Judges. Their proceedings may be registered as revenue cases and their appointments may be dealt with on the revenue side, but that is merely for administrative convenience. The Act itself distinguishes their position from that of Civil Courts: for instance, Section 7-A: "The jurisdiction of the Board shall not be questioned in any Civil Court," and the proviso to Section 8(2): "The Board or Court may revive the debt." I am unable therefore to hold that the Board is either a Civil or Revenue Court for the purposes of proceedings under Section 195. Further Section 18, Debt Conciliation Act, bars appeals from any order passed by a Board so that if the lower Court's view is correct and the Board is a Revenue Court then it cannot be deemed subordinate to the superior Revenue Courts under the first clause of Section 195, Sub-section (3), Criminal P.C. The second clause applies only to Civil Courts from whose decrees no appeal lies, for instance Small Cause Courts. As I hold that the Board is also not a Civil Court the provision for appeal would be inapplicable to it. I arrive at that conclusion not directly from the wording of Section 18. If the Board were a Civil Court then I think that an appeal might lie just as it would lie from such an order passed under the Civil Procedure Code by a Small Cause Court in spite of the fact that no appeal lies from a decree passed by such a Court. The application is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 15.