Gruer, J—The present applicant who was a creditor before the Debt Conciliation Board at Ramtek moved that Board to prosecute the debtors for perjury because they had given a false list of their property. The Board refused to prosecute, and the-creditor appealed to the District Judge, Nagpur, who has held that the Debt Conciliation Board is a Court within the meaning of Section 195, Criminal P.C., but a Revenue Court, not a civil one; hence no appeal from an order passed by it under Section 195 would lie to the revenue side. Secondly, it is held that by virtue of Section 18, Debt Conciliation Act, no appeal at all did lie. On the first point there is undoubtedly good authority for the view that the expression ''Court'' in Section 195 is of wide scope and includes more than the expression ''Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court'' in Section 476: see Kanhaiya Lal v. Bhagwan Das, 1926 AIR(All) 30 and Bilas Singh v. Emperor, 1925 AIR(All) 737. Section 195(2), Criminal P.C., now reads:

In Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) the term 'Court' includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, etc.

2. Formerly, this Section read: ''the term 'Court' means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, et