D.FALSHAW, K.R.PASSEY, MEHAR SINGH
Hakim Rai – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Passey, J.
1. The Sub-Judge 2nd Class Kapurthala has filed a complaint against Hakim Rai petitioner under Ss. 193 and 471, I. P. C. Against that complaint and incidentally the order whereby it was decided to prosecute him, the petitioner, as permitted by Section 476, Criminal P. C., took an appeal to the District Judge, Kapurthala, who rejected the same on 9-7-1955. Hakim Rai has now come up in revision under Section 439, Criminal P. C., against which a preliminary objection is raised by the Assistant Advocate General that against an order made by the District Judge, whose Court is a Civil Court, a revision can, if at all, lie under Section 115, C. P. C. and not under Section 439, Criminal P. C. His contention is that although the sub-Judge had in deciding the application of the opponent of Hakim Rai that he (Hakim Rai) be prosecuted for perjury and forgery, to resort to the procedure laid down in Section 476, Criminal P. C., he was not for that reason converted into a Criminal Court. According to tbe learned Assistant Advocate General the Sub-Judge continued to be a Civil Court against whose act of filing the complaint an appeal lay to the District Judge and not to a Sessi
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.