RAMESHAR LAL Vs. RAJDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. impugning an order dated the 30 of October 1926 passed by the District Judge of Ghazipur, The order in question is one purporting to be passed under Section 24 of the Civil P. C. transferring a pending proceeding on an application to the Munsif of Saidpur made under Section 476 of the Criminal P. C. that the Munsif should make a complaint against a party to a suit on a charge of forgery. The order directs that the proceeding should be transferred to the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur.

(2.) The applicant contends that Section 476 of the Criminal P. C. only contemplates a proceeding under Section 476 being conducted by the Court wherein the forgery was committed or a Court to which appeals from that Court ordinarily lie. It is admitted by the counsel for the opposite party that appeals do not ordinarily lie to the Subordinate Judge from the Munsif, but he urges that under Section 24 of the Civil P. C. the District Judge independently of Section 476 of the Criminal P. C. had power to transfer the proceeding from the Court of the Munsif.

(3.) It cannot be denied that according to the Full Beach decision of this Court, Banwari Lal V/s. Jhunka , the proceeding under Section 476 is to be regarded as a proceeding by a civil Court. Nor is there any restriction placed on the power of transfer conferred by Section 24 of the Civil P. C. in respect of proceedings. The only question is whether Section 24 of the Civil P. C. can apply to a proceeding of a civil Court arising out of the power conferred on a civil Court by Section 476 of the Criminal P. C. In my opinion Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be construed as self-contained and exhaustive, in respect of the matter of a Court making complaint against litigants on the ground of perjury or forgery. I construe the word "proceeding" in Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to cover all proceedings contemplated at the date when the Civil P. C. was passed and not to cover a special proceeding not then in contemplation but established by a subsequent Act, namely the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Act 18 of 1923). It is perfectly clear from the terms of Section 476 of the Criminal P. C. that the legislature did not intend the power of making a complaint conferred by this section to be exercised by anyone but the Court before whom the offence has been committed or a Court to which appeals from that Court ordinarily lie. It must be deemed to exclude such a Court as that of the Subordinate Judge on the principle that general provisions cannot override special provisions. I hold that Section 24 of the Civil P. C. cannot be invoked to allow a Court other than the Court, in the course of proceedings in which, a perjury or forgery was committed, or a Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from that Court, to entertain the question of preferring a criminal complaint.