1. This is a reference made by the Addl. Sessions Judge Srinagar recommending that the proceedings taken by the CJM Srinagar be quashed and the complaint filed by the non-appli­cant, Kulbhushan, before him be dismissed.

2. The reference arises in the following circumstances. On 11-11-1970 the non-applicant Kulbhushan tiled a complaint under Ss. 199 and 200 R.P C. against Harbans Lal alleging that the accused persons had given false declarations before the Tehsildar while he was making mutations in respect 0f the land referred to in the complaint. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and after perusing the documents and the summary of the evidence given before him, found that a prima facie case under Ss. 199/200 of the Ranbir P. C. was made out against the accused, and accord­ingly he issued warrants of arrest against them. The case was then transferred for disposal to the Judge Small Causes Court Srinagar. The accused went up in revision to the Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that as the offences under Ss. 199/200 Ranbir P.C. alleged to have been committed by them were committed before the Tehsildar who was a court within the meaning of S. 195(l)(b) of the Criminal P.C. therefore the com­plaint could not be entertained unless it was made by the court concerned. The contention raised by the accused appears to have found favour with the Addl. Sessions Judge who has made a reference for quashing the proceedings against the accused, on the ground that as the complaint had not been filed in accord­ance with the provisions of S. 195(l)(b) of the Criminal P.C. the trial court had no jurisdiction to take any cognizance of the offences. The learned judge has mainly relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Har Prasad Vs. Hans Raj A.I.R. 1966 All. 124. We might mention here that when the Sessions Judge called for an explanation from the trial court, it explained that the decision in AIR 1966 All. 124 (Supra) was distinguish­able and as the mutation proceedings were conducted by a Tehsildar who was only a Revenue Officer and not a revenue court therefore he was not barred from taking cognizance of the case: In view of the fact that the point involved a substantial question of law, it was referred by me to a Division Bench and the case has, therefore, been heard by us.

3. The main point that falls for determination in this case is as to whether a Tehsildar conducting mutation proceedings under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act can be said to be a revenue court within the" meaning of S. 195(l)(b) of the Criminal P.C. read with S. 476 of the Code.

S. 195 (1)(b) of the Code runs thus: -

or any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely Ss. 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228 when such offence is alleged to have committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the com­plaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such court is subordinate.

S. 195(2) which defines court runs thus:

"In clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-S. (1), the term court in­cludes a civil, revenue or criminal court, but does not in­clude a Registrar or sub-Registrar under the Registration Act, 1977."

4. A perusal of this section clearly indicates that the cogni­zance of an offence by a court is completely barred, unless the condition mentioned in S. 195 (l)(b) of the Code are complied with in other words the section requires that where an offence falls within the sections of the Ranbir P.C. enumerated in S. 195 (l)(b) of the Criminal P.C. and where such an offence is commit­ted in any court, then cognizance can be taken only on the written complaint of that Court and in no other way.

5. In the instant case it is not disputed that the offence alleged against the accused did fall within the purview of the offences mentioned in S. 195(l)(b) of the Criminal P.C., but it has yet to be conside

Click Here to Read the rest of this document