Decided on August 29,1952

Mamidi Harihararayulu And Ors. Appellant
Annavarapu Bangarayya Respondents


Ramaswami, J. - (1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal has been placed on the list, subject to the question of the maintainability of the same being decided.
(2.) THE facts are: Annavarapu Bangarayya, the decree -holder in O. S. No. 115 of 1837, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Masulipatam, filed an application dated 21 -2 -1951 under Sections 476 and 195, Criminal P.C. in the Court of the District Judge of Krishna praying that the Court may be pleased to sanction and launch prosecution proceedings against the respondents Mamidi Hari Hararayulu, Dora Krishnarao and Kosaraju Venkateswara Rao, who had obstructed the amin of the District Court while he was discharging his duties in effecting attachment of certain movables of the judgment -debtor Mamidi Hari Hararayulu in E. P. No. 316 of 1949 in O. S. No. 115 of 1937. The District Judge had before him the report of the amin and the connected papers. Notice was given to the respondents and the learned Judge heard arguments of the vakils for the petitioner and the arguments of the three advocates for the three respondents. Then he passed the following order: "In view of the amin's report dated 14 -12 -1950 which discloses offences under Sections 183 and 186, Penal Code among others, the Central Nazir of this Court is directed to make a complaint against the respondents in respect of the said offences before a Magistrate. I make no order as to costs." This order was passed on 1 -11 -1951. Thereupon the learned advocate for the defeated respondents in the lower Court purported to file a proceeding, which has originally been typed as a memorandum of criminal appeal and which has been subsequently corrected into a civil miscellaneous appeal falling under Section 476 -B, Criminal P. C. The High Court office returned the memorandum on the following ground: "Section 476 applies only to offences under Section 195 (b). Sections 183 and 186 fall under Section 195 (a). Hence the proceedings in the lower Court could not have been taken under Section 476. It may be stated how C. M. A. lies under Section 476 -B." Thereupon the learned advocate re -presented it with the following endorsement: "The C. M. A. is filed as civil miscellaneous appeal under Rule 37, Criminal Rules of Practice, and Section 476 -B, Criminal P. C., which applies to orders passed by the lower Court under Section 476, Criminal P. C. and Section 195, Criminal P. C."
(3.) THERE can be no doubt that this endorsement of the learned advocate is based on a profound misreading and, if I may say without meaning any offence, non -reading of Sections 476 and 476 -B, Criminal P. C. and Rule 37, Criminal Rules of Practice.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.