Decided on August 06,1971

STATE Respondents


Kondaiah, J. - (1.) The Original Suit, O.S. No. 75 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, filed by one Gunnam Satyanarayana Murthy, on the foot of an agreement dated 5th March, 1963 against Karri Adi Reddy, the appellant herein, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,702 was decreed only for a sum of Rs. 14,973-21. Our learned brother, Parthasarathi, J., before whom A.S. No. 351 of 1966, preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court came up for hearing, confirmed the decision of the trial Court. The learned Judge agreed with the finding of the trial Court that Exhibits B-1 and B-2, the documents filed and relied upon by the appellant herein, are false documents intended to be used in the case in support of his pleas Certain account books sought to be tendered as additional evidence were also commented upon by the learned Judge. At the time of the pronouncement of the judgment in the case, the learned Judge indicated the expediency of directing prosecution of the appellant. Thereafter, the case was reposted for further hearing on this aspect. After hearing the representations of both the Counsel, and on a consideration of the entire material, the learned Judge was of the opinion that it was expedient and necessary in the interests of justice that an order should be made, in accordance with the provisions of section 476 of the Code of C rminal Procedure and directed the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to file a complaint on the basis of the findings expressed by him in the Judgment. In pursuance of the direction of the learned Judge, a complaint has been filed. Against the order passed by the learned Judge under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, this Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant.
(2.) Then the appeal came up before us for final hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection that no Criminal Appeal lies against an order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court passed under section 476, C iminal Procedure Code, in the course of a civil appeal decided by him, but only a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of this Court would lie. This claim of the Additional Public Prosecutor was strenuously resisted by Sri Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant contending inter alia that his client has a statutory right of preferring a C' iminal Appeal under section 476-6, C iminal Procedure Code, and the present appeal has been validly filed and is maintainable.
(3.) On hearing the contentions of both the learned Counsel, the question that arises for decisions, whether on the facts and in the circumstances, it is a Criminal Appeal under section 476-6, Criminal Procedure Code, as contended by the appellant, or a Letters Patent, Appeal section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, lies only to the Court which has jurisdiction to entertain appeals ordinarily against the orders of such Court. Where the order under section 476, is passed by a Revenue Divisional Officer and an appeal ordinarily lies to the District Collector it is the District Collector that is empowered to pass an order under section 476-B. Similarly, where the order is passed by a Court of District Munsif under section 476, it is the District Court under section 476-B, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is competent to entertain an appeal. In the same way, where a District and Sessions Court passed an order under section 476, it is the High Court that is competent to exercise its appellate jurisdiction on the criminal side under section 476-B. We may usefully refer, in this context, to the provisions of section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 195, provides for the prosecution of persons for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for certain offences and for offences against public justice and those relating to documents given in evidence. Section 195 (i) (b) applies to an offence punishable under sections 193 to 196, and other offences specified therein alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court (and so no Court shall take cognizance of such offence) except on a complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. Similarly, section 195 (i) (e), applies to an offence punishable under sections 463, 471, 475 or 476, Indian Penal Code. Section 195 (2) states that the term "Court" used in clauses (b) and (c) thereof includes Civil Revenue or Criminal. Sub-section (3) of section 195 states that: "For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such foimer Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies to the principal Court having ordinary civil jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate". Section 195 (3), therefore, provides for an appeal being filed to a Court to which an appeal is provided ordinarily under the provisions of Civil or Criminal Procedure Code, as the case may be.;

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