NARAIN DAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1960-9-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on September 14,1960

NARAIN DAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

M S SHERIFF VS. STATE OF MADRAS [DISTINGUISHED]



Cited Judgements :-

D MAYAVANSHI VS. K S PAWRI IGP GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1971-2-10] [REFERRED]
JWALA PRASAD VS. JWALA BANK LTD [LAWS(ALL)-1960-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN PRASAD GANERIWALA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1973-12-25] [REFERRED]
JAGDEV SINGH VS. LOKESH JHA [LAWS(J&K)-2004-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
VADLAPATLA MARAYYA VS. VALLABHANENI BUCHIRAMAYYA [LAWS(APH)-1961-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR MUKHOTY VS. BANK OF MADURA LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-1999-5-15] [REFERRED]
LAXMI NARAYAN UDYOG LIMITED (IN LIQN) AND PANKAJ KUMAR AGARWAL VS. OMENDRA KUMAR CHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-2017-7-103] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Raghubar Dayal, J. - (1.)Narain Das filed a civil writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. He subsequently moved an application under S. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) for making a complaint under S. 193, Indian Penal Code, against Phanish Tripathi alleging that a certain statement in an affidavit filed by the latter was false. The learned Judge who heard this application, holding that the appellant had not succeeded in showing that any portion of the affidavit of Tripathi filed on May 14, 1959, was false, dismissed the same. It is against this order of the learned Judge of the High Court that Narain Das has filed this memorandum of appeal under S. 476B of the Code. The Registry has submitted the memorandum of appeal with a report for determining the question whether the appeal is competent in this Court.
(2.)Section 476 of the Code is to be found in Ch. XXXV which is headed 'Proceedings in case of certain Offences Affecting the Administration of Justice'. Section 476 empowers any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, when it is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in S. 195(1) (b) or (c) which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding before it, to file a complaint, after such inquiry as it thinks necessary, before a Magistrate of 1st Class having jurisdiction. It is clear therefore that where an offence referred to in S. 195 (1) (b) or (c) is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in a Civil Court, an inquiry under S. 476 and the action taken on that inquiry by the Civil Court, are in relation to that proceeding itself.
(3.)Any person aggrieved by an order of a Court under S. 476 of the Code may appeal in view of S. 476B to the Court to which the former Court is subordinate within the meanng of S. 195 (3), which provides that for the purposes of the 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 former Court, or, in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate. The decrees of a single Judge of the High Court exercising civil jurisdiction are ordinarily appealable to the High Court under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court read with cl. 13 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. It is true that the decision of a single Judge of the High Court as the decision of the appellate Bench hearing appeals against his decrees. But the Court constituted by the single Judge is a Court subordinate to the appellate Bench of the High Court in view of the artificial judicial subordination created by the provisions of S. 195 (3) to the effect 'a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees....'In the case of a Civil Court which passes appealable decrees, that Court is deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from its decrees. In the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, that Court is deemed subordinate to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the former Court is situate, even though normally such a Court will not be subordinate to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local limits it is situate.
;


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