Judgment :- 1. The first defendant is the revision petitioner. The revision petition is from an order according sanction to the plaintiff to prosecute the defendants for an offence under S.188 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., for disobeying an order of injunction issued by the court restraining the defendants from putting up any new building on the suit property. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the order passed by the court below is an appealable order and that, therefore the revision petition is not maintainable. I do not think that there is any substance in the preliminary objection. The order purports to be one relating to an offence coming under S.195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such an order is not appealable. S.476B provides for appeals from orders under S.476 and S.476-A. What is provided in S.476-B is that: "Any person on whose application any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court has refused to make a complaint under S.476 or S.476A or against whom such complaint has been made, may appeal to the court to which such former court is subordinate within the meaning of S.195, sub-s. [3] " S.476(1) reads thus: "When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether on application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in S.195, Sub-s. [1] Cl. [b] or Cl. [b] or Cl. [c], which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court, such court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the court, and shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, and may take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or, if the alleged offence is nonbailable may, if it thinks necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to much Magistrate, and may bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate." S.476-A is to the following effect: "The power conferred on Civil, Revenue and Criminal Court by S.476, Sub-s. [1], may be exercised in respect of any offence referred to therein and alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any such Court by the court to which such former court is subordinate within the meaning of S.195, Sub-s. [3], in any case in which such former court has neither made a complaint under S.476 in respect of such offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint; and where the Superior Court makes such complaint, the provision of S.476 shall apply accordingly." It will thus be seen that S.476(1) and 476-A relate only to offences referred to in Cls.(b) and (c) of Sub-s. (1) of S.195 and that they do not relate to Cl. (a) of that Sub-section. According to the court below the offence in this case is one that comes under Cl. (a). Therefore, S.476(1) and 476-A cannot apply to this case. Since S.476-B applies only to cases coming under S.476 and 476-A, S.476-B also cannot apply to this case, and therefore, the order is not appealable. Reference may be made to Maruda Pillai v. Narayanaswami Pillai and others (A.I.R.1939 Mad. 336), Bajrang Marwari v. Durga Prasad (AIR 1937 Pat. 31) and P.J. Money v. Emperor (AIR 1928 Rang. 296). I, therefore overrule the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent. 2. Coming to the merits of the revision petition it is clear that the order of the court below is wrong. 336), Bajrang Marwari v. Durga Prasad (AIR 1937 Pat. 31) and P.J. Money v. Emperor (AIR 1928 Rang. 296). I, therefore overrule the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent. 2. Coming to the merits of the revision petition it is clear that the order of the court below is wrong. In the first place, I do not think that refusal to comply with an order of injunction issued by a civil court is an offence that comes under S.188 of the Indian Penal Code. That section reads thus: "Whoever knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation - It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces or is likely to produce, harm." Obviously the section applies to orders promulgated by public servants in respect of matters relating to safety, health or convenience of the public or in other words, to orders promulgated by public functionaries for public purposes. It does not apply to an order passed by a civil court in respect of matters affecting the parties to a suit. The proper remedy for the disobedience of such an order is committal for contempt. 0.39, R.2, Sub-r. 3, provides for cases of disobedience of an order of injunction issued by a civil court. It does not apply to an order passed by a civil court in respect of matters affecting the parties to a suit. The proper remedy for the disobedience of such an order is committal for contempt. 0.39, R.2, Sub-r. 3, provides for cases of disobedience of an order of injunction issued by a civil court. It is to the following effect: "In the case of disobedience, or of breach of any such terms, the court granting an injunction may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding 6 months, unless in the meantime the court directs his release." For the position that an order passed in a civil suit between party and party does not come within the scope of S.188 of the Penal Code reference may be made to the following decisions, namely, Quinny v. Keshab Chandra Mukherji (A.I.R.1949 Calcutta 349), Bishan Datt v. Emperor (AIR 1948 All. 50), Mammali v. Kutti Ammu (ILR 39 Mad. 543) and In the Matter of the Petition of Chandra Kanta Dev (I.L.R. 6 Cal 445). 3. Even if the case comes under S.188 of the Penal Code the proper procedure to be followed under S.195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for the public servant himself or for some other public servant to whom he is subordinate to make the complaint and not to direct a third person to make the complaint. S.195(1)(a) reads thus: "No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under S.172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code [XLV of 1860] except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate." The learned Munsiff has, therefore, gone wrong in according sanction to the plaintiff to prosecute the defendants for the offence alleged to have been committed by them. The order of the court below is unsustainable. It is, therefore, set aside. 4. he revision petition is allowed. Allowed.