DES RAJ Vs. STATE
LAWS(ALL)-1966-10-44
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 13,1966

DES RAJ Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BAJAJ APAJIK KOTE V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH PRASAD V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
LALA SHRI BHAGWAN AND ANOTHER V. RAM CHAND [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BANK LIMITED DELHI VS. EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
BRAJNANDAN SINHA VS. JYOTINARAIN [REFERRED TO]
VIRINDAR KUMAR SATYAWADI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
GULLAPALLI NAGESWARA RAO VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. SHYAM SUNDER JHUNJHUNWALA [REFERRED TO]
(THAKUR) BILAS SINGH VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

U.P.Uniyal, J. - (1.)This application in revision is directed against an order repecting the objection that the complaint under Sections 193 and 199, I.P.C. could not be entertained by the Magistrate as the same had not been preferred by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before whom the alleged false affidavit i was filed.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the present revision may now be stated. One Munna Lal who was the landlord of certain accommodation, applied under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (The Act) seeking permission to file a suit to eject his tenant, the applicant Des Raj. The application under Sec. 3 was contested by the tenant who filed an affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer making certain statements which disentitled the landlord from seeking permission to eject the tenant. The result was that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the landlord. Thereafter the landlord filed a complaint under Sec. 193 and 192 I.P.C. against the applicant alleging that the latter had made false statements in-the affidavit filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The applicant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint and contended that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence inasmuch as the complaint had not been preferred by the court in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 195(1) (b) of Crimial P.C. The Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge overruled the objection and hence the revision.
(3.)The sole point for consideration is whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is a court as contemplated by Sec. 195 Crimial P.C. The expression court is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code. Sec. 3 of the Eviction Act defines court as follows:-
"Court includes all judges and magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence."
Sections 19 and 20 of the Penal Code define the terms Judge and Court of Justice as under:-
Sec. 19 "The word Judge denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person who is empowered by law to give, in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, definitive judgment, or a judgment which is not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definite, or

who is one of a body of persons, which body of persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment."

Sec. 20 "The words Court of Justice denote a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially."



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