Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. The proceedings which led up to the two petitions before us may be briefly stated as follows:

2. The petitioner Nataraja Iyer was assessed to income-tax in an annual income of Rs. 4,400 for the official year 1910--11. He appealed against the assessment to the Revenue Divisional Officer of Ariyalur, who was the Collector of taxes under the Income-Tax Act, II of 1886. At the hearing of the appeal a sworn statement was taken from the petitioner. The appeal was rejected on the 30th July 1910. On the 25th August 1910 the Divisional Officer wrote to the Collector suggesting that sanction might be accorded for the prosecution of the petitioner for certain false statements contained in his sworn statement. The Collector apparently did net consider it necessary to take any steps. On the 15th October 1910, the Divisional Officer issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be passed directing his prosecution for making false statements. On the 1st November 1910, the Divisional. Officer passed final Orders under Section 476 directing the prosecution of the petitioner. The petitioner made two previous infructuous attempts to avoid prosecution to which it is unnecessary to refer in detail. Criminal Revision Case 509 of 1911 is an application to this Court under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of the Divisional Officer.

3. The petition is obviously untenable. under Section 435, this Court has power to call for and examine only the record of a proceeding bsfore an inferior Criminal Court. The Divisional Officer certainly did not act as a Criminal Court in passing the order under Section 476. He apparently acted as a Revenue Court. Whether he was in reality a Revenue Court and had power to pass the proceedings are questions that will have to be subsequently dealt with. But it is clear that the order was not passed by him as a Criminal Court. The petition must therefore be dismissed.

4. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 320 of 1911 is an application asking this Ccurt to quash the proceedings of the Divisional Officer on the ground of absence of jurisdiction in him to pass the order. A writ of certiorari was applied for. this Court issued the writ and the record of the proceedings of the Divisional Officer has been sent up to this Court. The petitioners contention is that the Divisional Officer in determining an appeal under the Income-tax Act did not act as a Court; and he had therefore no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code;. secondly, that even if he was a Court he had no jurisdiction to pass an order directing a prosecution long after the proceedings in the Income-tax appeal had been closed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor,; on the other hand, contends first that we have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari on an officer beyond the Original, Civil and Criminal jurisdiction of this Court; secondly, that this will not quash the proceedings on certiorari as the petitioner had other remedy open to him, because the Divisional Officer was a Revenue Court in hearing appeals under the Income-tax Act and the order was one which could be sat aside by the Revenue Board to whom the Divisional Officer was subordinate; thirdly, that assuming that this Court has jurisdiction to quash an order of a Divisional Officer passed as a Revenue Court, there was i no such defect of jurisdiction as to call for our interference and the case is not a fit one for the exercise by this Court of its discretionary power for quash the proceedings on certiorari.

6. The questions for our decision are:

(1) Has this Court Jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari on an officer beyond the limits of its original jurisdiction?

(2) Was the Divisional Officer a Court in hearing appeals under the Income-tax Act?

(3) If he was a court should the petitioner have appealed to the Revenue Board to get the Divis