1. In a complaint filed by Mehda Shah against Mst. Khatoni and others under Section 82 of the Registration Act objection was taken by the counsel for the accused that the complaint was not maintainable without the previous sanction of the Registering Authority as contemplated by Section 3 of the Registration Act.
2. The learned Munsiff Magistrate Handwara over-ruled this objection of the accused. Against the order of the Munsiff Magistrate a revision application was filed by the accused in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge who affirmed the order of the Munsiff Magistrate and dismissed the revision application. The accused has come up in revision to this Court against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
3. The sole question for consideration in this revision application is whether it was necessary for the complainant to obtain permission under S. 83 of the Registration Act before filing the complaint against the accused under S. 82 of the said Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Rangoon High Court, and also on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, reported as Mohammed Mehdi v. Emperor, AIR 1934 All 963.
5. It is true that in the Rangoon case the view taken was that a private person cannot commence a prosecution for an offence under the Act without the permission mentioned in Section 83 of the Registration Act and the same view was taken by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court; but the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay have held that the provisions of S. 82 are not obligatory. The Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Gopinath v. Kuldip Singh, ILR 11 Cal. 566 has held as follows:
“We are of opinion that no sanction is required. It has been contended that, under Section 83 of the Registration Act, it is necessary that some one of the officers who are mentioned in that section must have given previous permission to institute proceedings; but we think that it is not so. The provisions of S. 83 are not obligatory. They rather seem to be intended for the purpose of enabling the officers of the Registration Department when they should see fit, to institute any prosecution under the Act upon their own responsibility.”
6. The same view was taken by the Madras High Court? in In re, Piramu Nadathi, AIR 1918 Mad. 439. It has been held that the permission of the officers specified in Section 83 of the Registration Act, is not a preliminary requisite for the institution of proceedings by a private person for offences under the Act. The Patna High Court also took the same view in Ganga Dibya v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Pat 227 in which it has been held that permission under S. 83 is not necessary for the institution of a prosecution by a private person for an offence under S. 82.
7. The language of Section 83 of the Registration Act does not totally prohibit prosecution in respect of Fences under the Registration Act without obtaining sanction of the registering authorities. S. 83 lays down that a prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer, in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector-General, the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or Sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed. Whereas in S. 195 of the Cr. P. Code the phraseology adopted is that no Court shall take cognizance of certain offences without obtaining a certain sanction.
8. By comparison of the provisions in these two sections it would be perfectly clear that the provisions of S. 83 do not prohibit a private individual from filing a complaint without obtaining sanction of the Registering Authority whereas under Section 195 of the Cr PC the prosecution cannot be commenced without obtaining the sanction of certain authorities. In my view the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly held that it was not necessary to obtain previous sanction under Section 83 of the Registration Act before filing a complaint under Section 82 of the Registration Act against the accused.
9. I see no force in this revision application and it is dismissed.
JC/V.R.B
10. Revision dismissed.