G.G.Sohani, J.

1. This full Bench has been constituted on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court to consider the question as to whether a Compensation Officer appointed under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be held to be a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows:

A charge-sheet was filed against the accused-applicants before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna, by the Inspector of Vigilance, alleging that in pursuance of a conspiracy entered into by the accused, payment of more than two crores of rupees by way of compensation was fraudulently made by the accused and they, therefore, be tried for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420,467,468, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Sub-sec. (1)(c) and (d) of Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the accused that the aforesaid offences were- alleged to have teen committed by the accused in proceedings before a Compensation Officer appointed under the Act, that the Compensation Officer appointed under the Act was a Court within the meaning of Sec. 195(i)(b) of the Code and that as the complaint in the instant case was not filed by the Compensation Officer, the learned Special Judge (vigilance) could not take cognizance of the offences. This objection was not upheld by the learned Special Judge. The accused thereupon filed an application before this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code praying that the proceedings before the Special Judge (Vigilance) be quashed on the ground that no proper complaint as required by Sec. 195(1); (b) of the Code was filed before the Special Judge. When the matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the accused on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported is Chandra Kishore Jha V/s. The State of Bihar, 1975 BBCJ 656, holding that a Compensation Officer appointed under the Act was a Court within the meaning of Sec. 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Division Bench doubted the correctness of the decision reported in Chandra Kishore Jha V/s. The State of Bihar 1975 BBCJ 656 (supra) and was of the view that the matter required reconsideration by a Full Bench, That is how this matter has come up for consideration before this Full Bench.

3. Learned counsel for the accused contended that the provisions of Section 195(1Kb) of the Code prohibit a Court from taking cognizance of offences specified therein unless and until a complaint in writing was filed by a Court*, that a Compensation Officer appointed under the provisions of the Act was aCourt within the meaning of Sec. 195(S)(b)of the Code, that the decision in Chandra Kishore Jha V/s. The State of Bihar, 1975 BBCJ 656 (supra) had correctly decided that the Compensation Officer was a Court, that the said decision had held the field for all these years and that there was no cogent reason for taking a view different from that taken in 1975 BBCJ 656. It was urged that even if two views were possible, the decision by the Division Bench in (975 BBCJ 656 should not be over-rule in view of the settled principles of law relating to precedents. In reply, it was contended that a Compensation Officer appointed under the Act was a Tribunal and that in view of the provisions of Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 195 of the Code, unless the Act under the provisions of which that Tribunal was constituted declared it to be a Court for purposes of Sec. 195 of the Code, the Compensation Officer could not be held to be a Court within the meaning of Sec. 195(1) (b) of the Code.

4. To appreciate that contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to turn to the relevant provisions of Sec. 195 of the Code, Sect