IMPORTANT POINT
Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act is not subordinate to District Judge so as to entitle District Judge to file complaint in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195 r/w 340—In the land acquisition award in the reference pending before Civil Court, a large scale fraud was found in awarding compensation wherein Subordinate Judge, his staff, advocates and other officials were involved—Allegations against accused came within purview of offences specified u/s 195 Cr.P.C.—High Court got matter examined by a Special Committee—On basis of report of Committee inquiry was made by District Judge who filed complaint in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C.—Respondents filed appeal—Division Bench allowed appeal holding that inquiry conducted by District Judge was impermissible in law—Appeal—State had issued notification that reference was to be made to a Subordinate Judge—Would said Court be subordinate to the Court of District Judge? (No).
       Held : In our opinion, it would not be. A Court of Subordinate Judge may be subordinate to District Judge for administrative purpose. He may be a court subordinate to it under the Code of Civil Procedure. But in relation to a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, it would not be. We have noticed that in terms of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the procedures laid down under the Civil Procedure Code would apply but the same is subject to the exceptions specified therein, viz., save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained therein. Land Acquisition Act is a special statute. It provides for the forums both original and appellate. (Para 16)
       What is of significance is that the subordination of courts as specified therein is only for the purpose of the said Code and not for the purpose of a special Act, although the provisions thereof may be applicable to a case arising thereunder. Section 96 of the Code provides that an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. The Court entitled to hear the appeals from a decree passed by a trial Court, therefore, must be authorized therefor. It is one thing to say that an appeal, depending upon the valuation, would lie before different forums, but if under the provisions of a special statute an appeal shall lie only before the High Court and to no other, the District Court would not be a court where an appeal would ordinarily lie from a judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge. Land Acquisition Act being self-contained code; in relation to the matters falling within the purview of the Land Acquisition Act, the Civil Courts would have no jurisdiction.(Para 17)
       Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognise administrative discipline; it recognises judicial discipline with regard to the right of the higher authority to exercise appellate powers. The expression “ordinarily” may mean “normally”, as has been held by this Court in Kailash Chandra vs. Union of India [(1962) 1 SCR 374 : AIR 1961 SC 1346] and Krishangopal vs. Shri Prakashchandra & Ors. [(1974) 1 SCC 128], but, the said expression must be understood in the context in which it has been used. “Ordinarily” may not mean “solely” or “in the name”, and thus, if under no circumstance an appeal would lie to the Principal District Judge, the Court would not be subordinate to it. When in a common parlance the expression “ordinarily” is used, there may be an option. There may be cases where an exception can be made out. It is never used in reference to a case where there is no exception.(Para 19)
       The Civil Courts exercise their jurisdiction not only in respect of a suit filed before it, they do so under various special statutes. The hierarchy of the Courts for the purpose of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, will have to be determined, having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the statutes under which the same is required to be determined. We may immediately notice that the Act makes a distinction between filing a complaint by a public servant and a court. Whereas Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 195 contemplates administrative subordination, Clause (b) contemplates judicial subordination. Each expression used in the Code, therefore, must be understood upon reading the provisions thereof in their entirety and not in isolation. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.(Paras 24 and 25)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.9.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, whereby and whereunder a complaint petition filed by the District & Sessions Judge, Vishakhapatnam in terms thereof was quashed.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Lands situated in Pisinikada village in the district of Vishakhapatnam were acquired by the State of Andhra Pradesh for providing house-sites to the weaker sections of society. Awards in respect of the said acquisition were made by the Land Acquisition Collector. Reference thereagainst was made to the Civil Court at the instance of the owners of the land. A large scale fraud, allegedly, took place in awarding compensation wherein the Sub-ordinate Judge, Anakapalle, his staff, the advocates of the claimants, the advocates appearing on behalf of the State and other officials were said to be involved. Upon obtaining requisite permission from the High Court, the CBCID registered a case and investigation thereinto was carried on. In its report dated 4.5.1998, the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad indicated about a large scale conspiracy and fraud committed by the accused persons. Allegations made as against the accused came within the purview of the offences specified under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code as a result thereof an inquiry under Section 340 thereof was imperative. The High Court got the matter examined by a Special Committee. It was opined that an inquiry may be conducted by District Judge, Vishakhapatnam. The report of the said Committee having been approved by the Full Court of the High Court, an inquiry was made by the District Judge, Vishakhapatnam. The learned District Judge examined a large number of witnesses and ultimately filed a complaint on 1.5.1999, pursuant to the findings recorded therein. An appeal came to be filed thereagainst by respondents herein before the High Court, which was marked as Criminal Appeal No.587 of 2000. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, in view of the importance of the question involved, referred the matter to a Division Bench by an order dated 31.10.2000.

4. A Division Bench of the High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal holding that the inquiry conducted by the District Judge was impermissible in law. It was directed :

“In the light of what has been stated herein above, we set aside the order passed by the District Judge, but in the facts and circumstances of the case direct the Registrar to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice who may place the matter before an appropriate Bench for orders under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Dicidedly the Court under Land Acquisition Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court as all appeals lie to the High Court. We would have ordered an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the Sub-Judge himself but as the matter had earlier been considered by two Judges of this Court though administratively and the report of such committee had been approved by the Full court, therefore, we direct that the matter be heard and decided by the High Court reminding ourselves with the old maxim that justice must not only be done but also seen to have been done.”

5. The State is, thus, in appeal before us.

6. Mr. Anup G. Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 195 thereof specifies the Courts being Civil, Criminal or Revenue, which are genus and, as the Land Acquisition Judge is governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in terms of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898, (for short, ‘the Act’),

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1085

IMPORTANT POINTReference Court under Land Acquisition Act is not subordinate to District Judge so as to entitle District Judge to file complaint in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act is not subordinate to District Judge so as to entitle District Judge to file complaint in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C.