V.S.DESHPANDE, J. - (1.)The question referred to this Division Bench is whether the Competent authority holding an inquiry under sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956 is a "court" within the meaning of section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The question has an importance wider than the present case. For, the Competent authority acting under section 19(3) of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act is a quasi-judicial authority. With the march of the statute law and the welfare state in India a large number of administrative authorities have been functioning in a quasi-judicial manner. They are, therefore, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 as also to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136. The word "court" is itself used either in a narrow sense of a civil, criminal or a revenue court as it has been used, for instance, in section 476 of the of Criminal Procedure or in a wider sense to include a judicial tribunal which, though not called a court, is still a court in the wider sense because it is analogous to a civil, ciriminal or a revenue court. Sub-section (2) of section 195 Criminal Procedure Code adopts the wider concept of "court" for the purposes of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 195 by staling that "in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, but does not include a Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the Indian Registration Act, 1877". A judicial authority or tribunal which is not a civil, criminal or a revenue court strictly speaking may nevertheless be a "court" for the purposes of clauses (b) and (c) of section 195(1) Criminal Procedure Code if it is analogous to a civil, criminal or revenue court inasmuch as it satisfies the essential characteristics of these courts properly so called The wider implication of the question before us, therefore, is where to draw the line between a court in the wider sense indicated above on the one hand and other quasi-judicial tribunals which are not "courts" even in this wider sense. The category of a quasi-judicial tribunal comprises a large number of tribunals with varying characteristics. Only some of these quasi-judicial tribunals which are analogous to a court proper would be a "court" under section 195(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure while the rest of the quasi-judicial tribunals would remain tribunals even though they are quasi-judicial. It is by drawing such a line that we would find out whether the Competent authority acting under section 19(3) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 falls in the class of a "court" or falls in the other class of quasi-judicial tribunals which are not courts.
(2.)The facts raising this question are brief. Petitioner No. 1 Shish Chand is the landlord and the respondent Bhagwan Pershad is a tenant of the premises situated in a slum area- Petitioner No. 1 Sled an application before the Competent authority for permission to file an application for eviction against the respondent tenant before the Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Petitioners 2 and 3 supported petitioner No. 1 by filling affidavits etc. The tenant has filed a complaint against the three petitioners under sections 193, 199 and 200 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code' and the complaint was entertained by a Magistrate. The three petitioners who were accused before the trial Magistrate contended that the Competent authority was a "court" for the purposes of clause (b) of section 195(1) Criminal Procedure Code and inasmuch as sections 193, 199 and 200 Indian Penal Code are included therein, the cognizance of the complaint by the Magistrate was barred by section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention was disallowed both by the Magistrate and in a revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence this revision petition to the High Court.
(3.)To understand the object with which and the context in which the word "court" is used iq clause (b) of section 195(1), it is necessary to read the relevant part of section 195 which is as below:-
"195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the Public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. (b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely, sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate; or (c) of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. (2) In clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, but does not include a Registrar "or Sub-Registrar ' under the Indian Registration Act, 1877".