The jurisdictional conflict between a Single Judge and Division Bench under S.476-B of the Criminal Procedure Code was clarified, asserting that the appeal was maintainable despite procedural errors.

1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law whether a Single Judge of this Court could be deemed to be subordinate to the Division Bench of this court for the purpose envisaged in S.476(B) of the Criminal Procedure Code . The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under : -

2. The present appellant joined the services in the State of Gujarat on 1st July, 1963 as a direct recruit to the post of Police Sub Inspector. He was posted at Junagadh and several other places. On 19th December, 1966, he was served with a charge sheet, dated 14th December, 1966. The charge under the said charge sheet was in respect of a private inland letter, dated 14th January, 1965 alleged to have been written by the present appellant to his friend Punjabhai. This letter was sent to the Vigilence Commission which entrusted the inquiry to the C. I. D., Gujarat State. On the recommendation of the C. I. D., a departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and ultimately, he was exonerated of the charge on 20th April, 1967. The present appellant thereafter continued in service upto 27th January, 1969 and was discharged from service. He, thereupon, filed a writ petition before this court against the said order of discharge. In that writ petition, an affidavit was filed by the Inspector General of Police denying several averments made in the said writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court after hearing both the parties. Thereafter, the present appellant gave an application under S.476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting the court to make a complaint against the Inspector General of Police under S.193 and S.199 of the Indian Penal Code for making false statements in the affidavit filed in special civil application No. 1598 of 1969 (writ petition). The said application came up for admission hearing before our learned brother Thakkar, J., who, rejected the same in limine by his order, dated 27th August 1970.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, this appeal has been preferred to this Bench.

4. Miss K.U. Bhatt, learned advocate, holding the brief for Mr. C.T. Daru for the appellant, submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition summarily was not justified on the facts of this case. She urged that in her application, she had mentioned certain facts which prima facie disclosed that the Inspector General of Police had intentionally suppressed certain facts and thereby made a false statement before the Court. When the appeal came up for hearing, a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the State, respondent No. 2 that this appeal itself was hot tenable. Mr. Chhaya urged that this was a criminal matter and that clause 15 of the Letters Patent would not be applicable in the instant case. He also expressed a doubt whether a Single Judge of this court can be considered to be subordinate to the Division Bench of this court. On merits, he urged that there was absolutely no substance in the petition requesting the court to make a complaint against the Inspector General of Police. He urged that no useful purpose would be served by making a complaint against the Inspector General of Police because the impugned order was not passed by the present Inspector General of Police but it was passed by Mr. Imdadali who was the then Inspector General of Police of the Gujarat State. He submitted that the affidavit was filed by the Inspector General of Police in the writ petition from the record before him and looking to the averments made in the petition, it was not necessary for the Inspector General of Police to make, any mention about the departmental inquiry which was held