1. A preliminary objection is raised that the appeal from the Subordinate Judge's order does not lie to the High Court but to the District Judge. The order under Section 476 of the Cr PC, directing the presentation of a complaint against the appellant was passed in a proceeding arising out of a suit valued at over Rs. 5,000. S. 476-B gives the person complained against a right to “appeal to the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of S. 195, sub-s. (3).” S. 195, sub-s. (3) enactsth at:
A Court should be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court.
2. Appeals from the decrees or orders of Subordinate Judges are provided for by Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, Act 12 of 1887:
An appeal shall lie (a) to the District Judge where the value of the original suit did not exceed Rs. 5,000, and (b) to the High Court in any other case.
3. The appellant has presented his appeal to this Court on the ground that the original suit was valued at over Rs. 5,000 and an appeal from the decree in it or from any order passed in proceedings arising out of it would ordinarily lie to this Court; but the case is covered by proviso (a) to S. 195, sub-s. (3):
Where appeals lie to more than one Court the appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate.
4. The words of the Code are perfectly clear. The Court of the Subordinate Judge is a Court from whose orders appeals ordinarily lie to two Courts, that of the District Judge and the High Court. The appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction, namely the District Judge's Court is to be the Court to which the Court of the Subordinate Judge must be deemed to be subordinate, within the meaning of S. 195, sub-s. (3).
5. The appeal therefore in this case lay to the District Judge. That was held to be the position under the Code as it stood before the amendments made in 1923; and the amendments introduced in that year have not changed the law in this respect. The decision in 17 All 51(1) was followed as being still good law in 99 IC 957(2) decided by two Judges of the Madras High Court. The same view is taken in an unreported case of this Court in Cri. Appl. No. 331 of 1934(3) decided by Macpherson, J. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
B.D/R.K
6. Appeal dismissed.