NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. On a petition of complaint filed by the Additional Collector, Patna, these petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for offences under Ss. 468, 371, 193 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The said petition of complaint was filed because it was discovered that during the hearing of a mutation appeal before the Additional Collector, these petitioners had filed forged and fabricated carbon copy of Jamabandi. According to the petitioners, the Additional Collector while hearing a mutation proceeding will not be deemed to be a Court within the meaning of Sec.340 or sub-s. (3) of Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), and, as such, he had no jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding for the prosecution of the petitioners as contemplated by the aforesaid sections.

2. It appears that these petitioners had filed a petition before the Deputy Collector, In charge Land Reforms, Patna, for grant of rent receipts in respect of certain lands, details whereof were mentioned in that petition. One Manju Sinha filed an objection to that petition saying that the entries in Register II have been wrongly made in favour of these petitioners and that they should be corrected. The Deputy Collector, In charge Land Reforms, heard both the parties and by his order dated 12-12-1972 ordered for correction of Register II in favour of the said Manju Sinha, rejecting the application for grant of receipt filed on behalf of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by that order, these petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Patna. The Additional Collector, however allowed the said appeal by his order dated 27-7-1973. In support of their claim, the petitioners had produced a carbon copy of the Jamabandi before the Additional Collector. The aforesaid Manju Sinha filed a revision before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. By his order dated 21-5-1974, while allowing the revision application and setting aside the order of the Additional Collector, the Additional Commissioner, Patna, recorded a finding that one of the petitioners had filed a false affidavit and these petitioners had filed a forged carbon copy of Jamabandi before the Additional Collector to support their case, and, as such, they were liable to be prosecuted. The Additional Commissioner, however, directed the Additional Collector, Patna, to Initiate prosecution against these petitioners. ln view of this order, the complaint in question was filed and the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for having committed an offence referred to in cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of S. 195 of the Code.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, if it is held that the Additional Collector while hearing a dispute in respect of mutation and correction of Register II is not a Court within the meaning of Ss. 340 and 195 of the Code, then the filing of the complaint and the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners is wholly without jurisdiction and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.

4. On several occasions this question has arisen as to whether a particular authority exercising a quasi-judicial power is a court or not. In recent years, apart from the regular courts Civil, Revenue and Criminal - many authorities have been vested under different enactments the power to decide disputes affecting the rights of citizens. While doing so, they are expected to act judicially, although they are not full-fledged court in the sense of the term. Sometimes they have only trappings of a Court. In this situation, the first question to consider before a prosecution could proceed on a complaint, filed by such authorities, is as to whether they are court within the meaning of the aforesaid sections. In the case of Cooper V/s. Wilson, 1937 2 KB 309, this question was considered as to whether the administrative tribunals or authorities constituted un