The Settlement Officer Consolidation is deemed a 'court' for the purpose of S.195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., affecting the jurisdiction of lower courts to entertain related complaints.

1. This criminal reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Ballia, in Criminal Revision No. 118 of 1971 of Ballia Sessions Division. The recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge is that the order passed by the Munsif Magistrate (East) Balliga dismissing the revisionist's complaint under S.193, I.P.C. filed against Sri Kant Misra, respondent No. 2, and discharging the said respondent of the said offence be set aside and the learned Munsif Magistrate be directed to proceed with revisionist's complaint in accordance with law.

2. The facts of the case, giving rise to the reference, are that in connection with consolidation of holdings operations a litigation took place between the revisionist's father Tulsi Misra and Mahadeo Misra, father of respondent No. 2, with respect to the title of a certain agricultural plot. Ultimately a compromise was filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO) whereby it was contemplated that the name of revisionist's father be entered over the disputed plot. Acting upon that compromise the Assistant Consolidation Officer ordered the name of revisionist's father Tulsi Misra to be mutated over the disputed plot. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) Ballia against the aforesaid mutation order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. That appeal was filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. Respondent No. 2, therefore, filed an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In an affidavit accompanying that application respondent No. 2 pleaded that he had learnt about the impugned compromise only two days earlier. That affidavit of respondent No. 2 was disbelieved by the learned Settlement Officer Consolidation and he dismissed the application of respondent No. 2 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. A clear finding was given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to the effect that the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 in support of the application under S.5 of the Limitation Act was false. Thereafter the revisionist filed a complaint under S.193, I.P.C. against respondent No. 2 before the Munsif Magistrate (East) Ballia for having filed the aforesaid false affidavit before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The revisionist filed that complaint because his father had by that time died. It was pleaded, inter alia, by respondent No. 2 before the learned Munsif Magistrate (East) Ballia that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the affidavit, which was the basis of that complaint, was filed before a court of law, namely, the Settlement Officer Consolidation in connection with judicial proceedings and, therefore, it was only the Settlement Officer Consolidation who could file a complaint against respondent No. 2 and the learned Munsif Magistrate could not take cognizance of revisionist's complaint in view of the bar imposed by S.195(1)(b), Cr. P.C. That
technical plea prevailed with the learned Munsif Magistrate and he dismissed the revisionist's complaint. Feeling aggrieved by that order the revisionist filed Criminal Revision No. 118 of 1991 in the court of the Sessions Judge, Ballia, which came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who has made this reference. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that consolidation authorities were not courts for the purposes of S.195(1)(b), Cr. P.C. as they were tribunals for limited purpose. He, therefore, opined that the bar imposed by S.195(1)(b), Cr. P.C. did not apply to the complaint of the revisionist. Consequently he al