The main legal point established is that the proper Court for appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. should be determined based on the provisions of Section 195(4) Cr.P.C. and the interpretation of the Civil Courts Act 1957.

RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

At the time when the appeal came up for admission the maintainability of the appeal before this Court was challenged by the learned counsel for the respondent who has entered appearance on receipt of notice in the petition for condonation of delay. It was submitted that the appeal ought to have been filed before the District Court as per the provisions contained in Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read along with Section 195 Cr.P.C. As the objection relates to the maintainability of the appeal, we have heard the counsel on both sides on that question before considering the question of admissibility of the appeal.

2. The order challenged in this appeal is one passed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. directing a complaint to be forwarded to the concerned First Class Magistrate Court. The appellants are aggrieved by the said order and have preferred this appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. The appellants have a right of appeal against the order is not in dispute. The only question to be considered is whether the appeal to be preferred under Section 341 Cr.P.C. will lie before this Court or before the District Court, Thalassery.

3. Section 341 Cr.P.C. reads thus :

"341. Appeal - (1) Any person on whose application any Court other than a High Court has refused to make a complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such Court, may appeal to the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195, and the superior Court may thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or, as the case, may be, making of the complaint which such former Court might have made under Section 340, and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly."

As per the above provision the appellants have to prefer their appeal to the Court to which the Court which has passed the impugned order is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Sub-section (4) of Section 195 is in the following terms :

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence - (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lie, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate : provided that -

(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed it be subordinate;

(b) omitted."

Going by the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 195 the procedure to be followed to determine the proper Court to which appeal is to be preferred under Section 341 Cr.P.C. is (i) to find out the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of the Court which has passed the order under Section 340 and (ii) in the case of Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to find out the Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction the Court which has passed the order is situate. The provision in clause (a) to the proviso declares that where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which the Court which has passed the order shall be deemed to be subordinate to. In this case the Court which has passed the order is the sub Court and as such it is Civil Court from whose decrees appeals ordinarily lie. So much so, we are concerned only with the first part of sub-section (4) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. in th