Queen-Empress v. Munda Shetti And Others

We agree with the Sessions Judge that the Tahsildar, when holding an enquiry as to whether transfer of the names in a land register should be made or not, was a Revenue Court. He was authorized under Act III of 1859, (Madras), to receive evidence and to decide whether transfer should be made or not. He was therefore, in our opinion, a tribunal empowered to deal with a particular matter and authorised to receive evidence hearing on that matter in order to enable him to arrive at a determination; (Raghoobuns Sahoy v. Kokil Singh). It appears, however, that the second accused person alone was a party to the proceeding in the Tahsildar's Court in which the documents alleged to be forgeries were produced. The accused persons Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were not parties, and such being the case sanction in their case was not required under section 195, clause (c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We accordingly set aside the committal to the Court of Sessions in the case of the second accused and direct, that she be discharged, but decline to interfere in so far as accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are concerned.