G. D. SAHGAL, J. :- The respondent to this appeal submitted to this Court a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus in which the appellant was arrayed as one of the opposite parties. The writ petition was allowed. Later on the respondent who was the petitioner in those proceedings moved an application under Sec. 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for proceeding against the appellant praying that in the interests of justice after a preliminary inquiry a complaint under Section 193 read with Sec. 199, Indian Penal Code be preferred against the appellant. The application came up for hearing before our brother Njgam who had decided the writ petition. After holding an inquiry he recorded a finding that it was expedient in the interests, of justice that in inquiry be held as to whether an offence mulct Section 193 read with Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code which is mentioned in Clause (1)(b) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been committed. As a result thereof he directed that a complaint be made against the appellant in respect of certain acts mentioned in the order. He also directed the counsel for the respondent (the applicant before him) to submit a draft of the complaint with a list of the witnesses and the documents. He further directed that the complaint be preferred by the Deputy Registrar under his signature to the District Magistrate, Bahraich. The appeal in which this reference has been made to the Full Bench is directed against that order.

2. It is common case of the parties that though the draft of the complaint has been submitted as directed by the learned Judge, it has not yet been approved and signed by the Deputy Registrar, inuch less lodged in the Court of the District Magistrate, Bahraich. In this State of affairs a preliminary point was raised on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the appeal was premature and should be dismissed on that ground. The preliminary point was supported by the authorities of this Court, Mohammad Illayas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 All 225 and Ramchandra Soti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 All 352 and if those two authorities are followed it should prevail. The Bench before whom the appeal came up for hearing and of which one of us was a member, however, felt doubtful as to whether the law laid down in these two authorities is correct and as such for obtaining an authoritative pronouncement the matter was re erred to a Full Bench. That is how the case copies up before us for deciding whether the preliminary point raised in the appeal that the appeal is premature has any substance.

3. Having heard the learned counsel at length we now proceed to determine the question that has been referred to this Bench.

4. The appeal has been filed under the provisions of Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides :-

"476-B. Any person on whose application any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court has refused to make a complaint under Section 476 or Section 476-A, or against whom such a complaint has been made, may appeal to the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195 Sub-Section (3), and the superior Court may thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint or, as the case may be, itself make the complaint which the subordinate Court might have made under Section 476, and, if it makes such complaint the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly".

It would thus appear that a right of appeal has been given to the applicant on whose application the Court has refused to make a complaint and also to a person against whom a complaint as contemplated under Section 476 has been made. There is no difficulty about the case of the person filing an appeal on whose application the Court has refused to make a complaint; for, such an order will be passed simultaneously with the finding under Section 476 that it is not expedient in t