1. This is an appeal on behalf of one Mahanth Harnandan Gir against an order of the Additional District Judge of Saran to file a complaint under Section 476A of the Cr PC, for offences under S. 471, Penal Code, or for any other relevant section under Section 195, sub-Section 1, cl. (B) or (C) of the Cr PC. It appears that the petitioner filed a suit before the Court of Small Causes on the basis of a handnote which according to the trial Court was not genuine. But the Court of Small Causes did not think it necessary to file a complaint because it thought that although it was of opinion that there had been interpolation and tampering in the body of the handnote, this was based on his own observation and opinion about which two opinions were not impossible. As against this an appeal was filed before the District Judge under Section 47GB of the Cr PC, but as the learned Additional District Judge points out no appeal lay in this case inasmuch as originally there was no application by the appellant before the Judge of the Small Cause Court. But he himself seems to think that he had power under s. 476A to file a complaint and has acted accordingly. The chief point that arises for consideration is whether the Additional Judge's Court was a Court which could exercise jurisdiction under Section 476A of the Cr PC. Section 476A is as follows:
The power conferred on civil, revenue and criminal Courts by S. 476, sub-s. (1) may be exercised in respect of any offence referred to therein and alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any such Court, by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of S. 195, sub-s. (3), in any case in which such former Court has neither made a complaint under S. 476 in respect of such offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint; and, where the superior Court makes such complaint, the provisions of S. 476 shall apply accordingly.
2. There are two things to be noted in this connexion. Section 476A of the Cr PC, comes into play when the Court below has neither made a complaint nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, that is to say, the lower Court has not passed any order in connexion with the offence. But in the present case, the Small Cause Court has not thought fit to file a complaint.
3. The next point to be considered is whether the Court of the Additional District Judge is a Court to which the Subordinate Judge is subordinate within the meaning of S. 195, sub-s. (3). Section 195, sub-s. (3) is as follows:
For the purpose of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies to the principal Court having ordinary civil jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate.
Provided that—(a) 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; and (b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the civil or revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connexion with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
4. Obviously therefore the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie will be the Court of the District Judge (vide AIR 1936 Pat 1221) and the cases mentioned therein. The constitution of civil Courts and the powers exercisable by them can be gathered from S. 3 of Act 12 of 1887 which is as follows:
5. There shall be the following classes of civil Courts under this Act, namely:—
(1) The Court of the District Judge;
(2) The Court of the Additional Judge;
(3) The Court of the Subordinate Judge;
(4) The Court of the Munsif;
and S. 8, cl. (2) of the same enactment says:
Additional Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to them, and in the discharge of those functions, they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge.
6. Therefore, an Additional District Judge is not the Court to whom appeals from the orders of the Munsif ordinarily lie from the Court of the Subordinate Judge.
7. Although the Courts concerned were slightly different, reference may profitably be made to the case in 15 PLT 3032 for the proposition that the Additional District Judge was not authorized to file a complaint under Section 476A of the Cr PC. I would therefore order that the complaint be withdrawn.
G.N/R.K
8. Order accordingly.