JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE respondent to this appeal submitted to this Court a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus in which the appellant was arrayed as one of the opposite parties. The writ petition was allowed. Later on the respondent who was the petitioner in those proceedings moved an application under Section 478 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for proceeding against the appellant praying that in the interests of justice after a preliminary inquiry a complaint under Section 193 read with Section 199, Indian Penal Code he preferred against the appellant. The application came up for hearing before (sic) brother Nigam who had decided the writ petition. After holding an inquiry he recorded a finding that it was expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry be held as to whether an offence under Section 193 read with Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code which is mentioned in Clause (1) (b) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been committed. As a result thereof he directed that a complaint he made against the appellant in respect of certain acts mentioned in the order. He also directed the counsel for the respondent (the applicant before him) to submit a draft of the complaint with a list of the witnesses and the documents He further directed that the complaint be preferred by the Deputy Registrar under his signature to the District Magistrate, Bahraich. The appeal in which this reference as been made to the Full Bench is directed against that order.
(2.)IT is common case of the parties that though the draft of the complaint has been submitted as directed by the learned Judge, it has not yet been approved and signed by the Deputy Registrar, much less lodged in the Court of the District Magistrate, Bahraich. In this State of affairs a preliminary point was raised on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the appeal was premature and should be dismissed on that ground. The preliminary point was supported by the authorities of this Court, Mohammad Illayas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 All 225 and Ramchandra Soti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 All 352 and if those two authorities are followed it should prevail. The Bench before whom the appeal came up for hearing and of which one of us was a member, however, felt doubtful as to whether the law laid down in these two authorities is correct and as such for obtaining an authoritative pronouncement the matter was referred to a Full Bench. That is how the case comes up before us for deciding whether the preliminary point raised in the appeal that the appeal is premature has any substance.
(3.)HAVING heard the learned counsel at length we now proceed to determine the question that has been referred to this Bench.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.