IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Law Reforms Act is not a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Headnote:(i) Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950-Compensation Officer-Whether a Court? - Held: Compensation Officer-I is not a Court within meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
       (ii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 195(1)(b) r/w Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950- Court meaning of Compensation Officer appointed under Bihar Land Reforms Act-Is not a Court within meaning of Section 195(1)(b).
       Held : The word Court is a word of very wide connotation. In legal parlance it indicates a place where justice is judicially administered. But for the purposes of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code we have to go by the definition of the word Court contained in sub-section 3 of that Section. The term Court had a wider meaning under the old Code but under the new Code it is given a restricted meaning. Now the word Court does not include all the judicial bodies and authorities constituted for administering justice. The Courts contemplated now by Section 195 are only Civil Courts, Revenue Courts and Criminal Courts and those Tribunals which are required by the Acts constituting them to be Courts for the purposes of Section 195. (Para 7)
       Assuming that the Compensation Officer appointed under the Act can be said to be a Court, it is not possible to hold that he is a Civil Court. Neither the Act nor any other legislation expressly provides that the Compensation Officer is a Civil Court. Though he possesses certain powers which a Civil Court possesses under the Code of Civil Procedure and the proceedings before him are deemed to be judicial proceedings he does not possess all the attributes of a Civil Court. Though a proceeding before him is to be considered as a judicial proceeding and is of a civil nature, it is of a limited nature. His appointment is under a Special Law and for a specific and limited purpose. His main function is to determine the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation is to be determined by finding out the rent and then making certain additions, subtractions and multiplications as provided in the Act itself. He cannot determine the questions of title or rights of the rival claimants except for the purpose of determining who should be paid compensation. The party claiming compensation cannot lead evidence as regards the value of his interest in the estate or tenure. Nor does a Compensation Officer has the discretion to decide independently the amount of compensation on the basis of such evidence.
       In the matter of preparation of draft assessment roll directions can be given to him by the State Government and Officers mentioned in Section 26(ii). He lacks the essential attribute of evidence which a Civil Court possesses. Thus, considering the nature of his jurisdiction and the extent of powers conferred on him it has to be said that he is not a Civil Court. Determination of compensation for divesting a tenure holder or an intermediary of his right in the estate or tenure is not a matter pertaining to revenue. For that reason he is not a Revenue Court also. Therefore, the Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Law Reforms Act is not a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Paras 9 & 10)

JUDGMENT

G.T. Nanavati, J.-The question which arises in this appeal is whether Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court held that Compensation Officer is not a Court and dismissal Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4073 of 1986, filed by the appellants, for quashing the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna.

2. The appellants are facing trial in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance) Patna wherein it is alleged that in pursuance of a conspiracy entered into by them, payment of Rs. 2 crore by way of compensation was fraudulently obtained by them and thus they have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with sub-section (1)(c) and (d) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellants raised a preliminary objection before the learned Special Judge that the aforesaid offences are alleged to have been committed by the appellants in respect of a document produced in the compensation proceedings before the Compensation Officer and as Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is a "Court" within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) the complaint could have been filed only by that Compensation Officer and as that has not been done in this case, the Special Judge (Vigilance) had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of those offences. The learned Special Judge overruled that objection. The appellants then filed an application under Section 482 of the Code in the Patna High Court praying that the proceedings before the Special Judge be quashed on the ground that no proper complaint, as required by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code has been filed. Initially, the said application was heard by a Division Bench of that Court. It doubted correctness of the decision of an earlier Division Bench in Chandra Kishore Jha v. The State of Bihar1, wherein it was held that Compensation Officer appointed under the Act is a `Court as defined by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code. The said application was, therefore, placed before a Full Bench of the High Court. It held that Compensation Officer appointed under the Act is not a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code. The correctness of that decision is questioned in this appeal.

3. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code debars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, except on a complaint in writing of that Court, or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. This bar also applies to criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or abetment of such offences. Sub-section 3 of that Section provides that the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of that Section. It is now not in dispute that the compensation officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, if he is a tribunal, has not been declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of Section 195(1)(b).

4. Therefore, what we have to consider is whether compensation officer can be said to be a Civil or Revenue Court. For deciding this question it is necessary to refer to those provisions of the Act which provide for appointment and jurisdiction of a Compensation Officer and consider the nature of functions which he has to perform.

5. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been enacted to provide for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure-holders in land and for certain other pur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1538

IMPORTANT POINTCompensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Law Reforms Act is not a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Law Reforms Act is not a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.