Judgement

S. B. SINHA, J. :- Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.9.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, whereby and whereunder a complaint petition filed by the District and Sessions Judge, Vishakhapatnam in terms thereof was quashed.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Lands situated in Pisinikada village in the district of Vishakhapatnam were acquired by the State of Andhra Pradesh for providing house-sites to the weaker sections of society. Awards in respect of the said acquisition were made by the Land Acquisition Collector. Reference thereagainst was made to the Civil Court at the instance of the owners of the land. A large scale fraud, allegedly, took place in awarding compensation wherein the Subordinate Judge, Anakapalle, his staff, the advocates of the claimants, the advocates appearing on behalf of the State and other officials were said to be involved. Upon obtaining requisite permission from the High Court, the CBCID registered a case and investigation thereinto was carried on. In its report dated 4-5-1998, the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad indicated about a large scale conspiracy and fraud committed by the accused persons. Allegations made as against the accused came within the purview of the offences specified under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code as a result thereof an inquiry under Section 340 thereof was imperative. The High Court got the matter examined by a Special Committee. It was opined that an inquiry may be conducted by District Judge, Vishakhapatnam. The report of the said Committee having been approved by the Full Court of the High Court, an inquiry was made by the District Judge, Vishakhapatnam. The learned District Judge examined a large number of witnesses and ultimately filed a complaint on 1-5-1999, pursuant to the findings recorded therein. An appeal came to be filed thereagainst by respondents herein before the High Court, which was marked as Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2000. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, in view of the importance of the question involved, referred the matter to a Division Bench by an order dated 31-10-2000.

4. A Division Bench of the High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal holding that the inquiry conducted by the District Judge was impermissible in law. It was directed :

"In the light of what has been stated hereinabove, we set aside the order passed by the District Judge, but in the facts and circumstances of the case direct the Registrar to place the matter before the Honble Chief Justice who may place the matter before an appropriate Bench for orders under Section 340, Cr.P.C. Dicidedly the Court under Land Acquisition Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court as all appeals lie to the High Court. We would have ordered an enquiry under Section 340, Cr.P.C. by the Sub-Judge himself but as the matter had earlier been considered by two Judges of this Court though administratively and the report of such committee had been approved by the Full Court, therefore, we direct that the matter be heard and decided by the High Court reminding ourselves with the old maxim that justice must not only be done but also seen to have been done."

5. The State is, thus, in appeal before us.

6. Mr. Anup G. Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 195 thereof specifies the Courts being Civil, Criminal or Revenue, which are genus and, as the Land Acquisition Judge is governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in terms of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898, (for short, the Act), thus, being s