JUDGMENT

Bennett, J - This is an application in revision against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich upholding in appeal the conviction of the applicant Sheo Narain under Sections 467 and 471, Penal Code. Sheo Narain was convicted under these sections by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Bahraich and sentenced under each section to four years' rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. This application in revision raises the question whether the Assistant Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to try the applicant. This legal point is admittedly raised for the first time in this application. There was no suggestion previously of any lack of jurisdiction. It appears that a suit was brought by the applicant before a Panchayat under the provisions of the U.P. Village Panchayat Act to recover a sum of money on foot of a chitti. Sheo Narain Singh himself filed an application for transfer to the Deputy Commissioner. Upon this the Deputy Commissioner called for a written report from the sarpanch. His report contained an allegation of forgery against Sheo Narain. The Tehsildar was then directed to enquire and report. His report supported the allegation and thereupon the Deputy Commissioner, that is the District Magistrate, preferred a formal complaint against Sheo Narain under Sections 467 and 471 and this complaint constituted the basis of the proceedings against him.

2. It is contended in this application that the District Magistrate was not competent to make such a complaint. Under Section 195(1)(c), Criminal P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of any offence falling under these sections except on the complaint in writing of the Court concerned, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. Under Sub-section (3) for the purpose of this section a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such civil Court is situate. In the present case there can be no doubt that the Panchayat Court was acting as a civil Court and there can also be no doubt that no appeal lay from its decision : vide Section 53, Panchayat Act. Section 71 gives revisional power to the Collector but no appellate power is conferred by that section. It has been held in more than one case that the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction for the purpose of Sub-section (3) is the Court of the Sessions Judge. Consequently, it was either the Panchayat Court itself or the Court of the Sessions Judge which should have preferred the complaint. I think, therefore, that the learned Counsel for the applicant correctly contends that the District Magistrate had no power to prefer a complaint.

3. But I have to consider now whether the applicant is entitled to put forward this objection at this stage. It is argued on his behalf that the matter is one of jurisdiction and that the provisions of the Code on the point are mandatory. This is true, but there are other relevant provisions of the Code to be considered. It is conceded that the procedure which should have been adopted by the applicant was by way of an appeal under Section 476B, and the question for consideration therefore is whether having omitted to avail himself of the remedy which is expressly provided by the Code to meet such a case, he is entitled afterwards to approach this Court in revision. Learned Counsel for the Crown has referred to several rulings in which this question is answered in the negative. They are: Jugeshwar Singh v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1936 Pat. 346, Emperor v. U Kadoe, A.I.R. 1936 Rang. 369, Jabbar Ali v. Emperor, AIR1929Cal203 and Ali Ahmad v. Emperor, AIR1932Cal545 . In the last three cases it was expressly held that where there has been no