IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
K C Collins
Kotta Atchayya And Anr.
Versus
Devarasetti Gangayya on
Decided On : 13 October, 1891
Registrar - Registration Act - Sections 72, 75 - The court discussed the definition of 'court' in the context of the Registration Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. It considered the duties of the Registrar, the powers to summon witnesses, and the nature of the enquiry. The court interpreted the term 'court' in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code and concluded that the definition of 'court' used in the Evidence Act applies to the Registrar holding an enquiry under the Registration Act.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether a Registrar acting under Sections 72 to 75 of the Registration Act is a court for the purposes of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The question arose due to conflicting decisions and the absence of a specific definition of 'court' in the relevant statutes.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the duties and powers of the Registrar, compared the language of the Criminal Procedure Code with its predecessor, and discussed the legislative intent behind the term 'court' in Section 195. It found that the Registrar, in conducting an enquiry, exercises functions akin to a court and therefore should be deemed a court for the purposes of Section 195.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the term 'court' in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to the Registrar's functions under the Registration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the Registrar's exercise of functions similar to a court, the comparison of language in the Criminal Procedure Code, and the legislative intent behind the term 'court' in Section 195.
Final Decision: The court answered the question referred to the Full Bench in the affirmative, holding that the Registrar acting under Sections 72 to 75 of the Registration Act should be deemed a court for the purposes of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt. C.J.
1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether a Registrar acting under Sections 72 to 75 of the Registration Act is or is not a court for the purposes of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The facts of the case are fully set out in the order of Reference made by Muthusami Aiyar and Wilkinson, JJ.
3. The question is undoubtedly one of some difficulty as there is no definition of a "court" either in the Registration Act or in either of the Codes.
4. By Section 3 of the Evidence Act, a court includes all persons except arbitrators legally authorized to take evidence. A Court of Justice is defined by the Indian Penal Code, Section 20, and is more restricted in its application.
5. Are we then at liberty to apply the definition of "court" given in the Evidence Act to the Registrar acting under Sections 72 to 75 of the Registration Act ? It is argued that the definition of court given in the Evidence Act 1 of 1872 is framed only for the purposes of the Act itself and cannot be applied to cases under the Registration Apt, [see Queen Empress v. Tulja I. L. R., 12 B., 37]. If this argument prevailed the difficulty in holding the Registrars enquiry to be one by a court would be much increased. The duties of the Registrar on the point in question are defined by Sections 72 to 75 of the Registration Act and are as follows:
6. An application shall be made to him in writing, and the statements in the application shall be verified in the manner required by law for the verification of plaints. He shall then enquire (1) whether the document has been executed, (2) whether the requirements of the law have been complied with so as to entitle the document to registration. If he finds the document has been executed and that certain requirements have been complied with he shall order the document to be registered.
7. The Registrar has power to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses, he can compel them to give evidence " as if he were a Civil Court," and he has also a discretion as to the costs.
8. It is therefore clear to my mind that the Registrar exercises more than mere administrative functions--in the examination of witnesses he is bound to observe the rules of evidence, and he is to consider the weight and credibility of the evidence and form his own conclusions. The learned judges in I. L. R., 12 B, 37 appeared to consider the Registrars functions purely administrative and the fact appears to have mainly influenced their judgment.
9. It appears also that in the former Code of Criminal Procedure the words used in Section 469 were "any Civil or Criminal or Revenue Court" whilst in Section 195 of the present Act the words used are "any court." I assume that it was the intention of the legislature to give the word "court " a more extended meaning than it had in the former Act. I am of opinion therefore that I am entitled to hold that the definition of court used in the Evidence Act applies to the Registrar holding an enquiry and taking evidence under the Registration Act and I therefore answer the question in the affirmative.
Muthusami Aiyar, J.
10. For the reasons recorded in the order of reference to the Full Bench I am of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Parker, J.
11. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether a Registrar acting under Sections 72 to 75 of the Registration Act is or is not a court for the purposes of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The reference has been made in consequence of the decision in I. L. R, 12 B, 36, in which the decision of this Court in In re Venkatachala, I. L. R, 10 M, 154, was dissented from. The question therefore for decision is in what sense the word "court" is used in Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code. The Code does not contain any definition of the term and it is used in more than one meaning, in some places as signifying a personal judicial authority and in others, a place. In Section 352 the same word is u
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.