JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This revision is directed against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Balasore, setting aside the order of the Additional Munsif, in directing prosecution of the opposite party under Sections 465, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The circumstances that gave rise to this revision may be briefly stated as follows: 2. The opposite party filed a suit (0.S. No. 231 of 1961-III) against the Petitioner in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Balasore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 500- alleged to, have been advanced by him on the basis of a pronote executed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner denied the execution, of the pronote. Thereafter the document was sent to one finger-print expert who opined that the finger-print borne on that document is not, that of the Defendant Petitioner. At the instance of the Plaintiff the document was again sent to the Governments finger print expert who also gave the same opinion. The Plaintiffs, however, failed to appear when the suit was called and the suit as accordingly dismissed for default. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a petition u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court to file a complaint against the Plaintiff under Sections 465, 476 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The learned Munsif by his order dated 17-1-1964 in Miscellaneous Case No. 1063 directed a complaint to be made against the opposite' party before the Sub-divisional Magistrate (Judicial) Balasore, under Sections 465, 467 and 471. Against this order dated 2-3-1964. of the Munsif, the, Plaintiff carried an appeal before the District Judge u/s 476-B. On 27-7-1964 the District Judge transferred this appeal to the Additional Subordinate Judge, Balasore, who by his order dated 23-12-1964, set aside the order of the learned Munsif and allowed the appeal of the Plaintiff. It is against this appellate order of the Subordinate Judge this application has been filed. 3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) The District-Judge has no jurisdiction to transfer a case of this nature to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge and the Additional Subordinate Judge has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. (ii) The appeal itself is not maintainable, as no complaint was in fact filed and the order of the Munsif was merely to file a complaint. I think both the contentions are well founded. (ii) The appeal itself is not maintainable, as no complaint was in fact filed and the order of the Munsif was merely to file a complaint. I think both the contentions are well founded. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions in Sections 195 and 476.B, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 195 says that GO Court shall take congnizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 of the Indian Penal Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. Obviously the learned Munsif took action under this provision in directing prosecution against the Plaintiff-opposite party as he produced a hand note which was found to be forged. Section 195(3) lays down that for the purposes of this section, a 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. Thus, the question is whether as against the present order of the learned Munsif, an appeal would ordinarily lie to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge who disposed of this appeal and Bet aside the order of the Munsif and whether the District Judge can transfer such a case to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge for disposal according to law. 4.Section 22(1) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts' Act (Act' XII 1887) provides that a District Judge may transfer to any Subordinate Judge under his administrative capacity any appeal that ordinarily lies and is pending before him from the decree or orders of the Munsif. 4.Section 22(1) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts' Act (Act' XII 1887) provides that a District Judge may transfer to any Subordinate Judge under his administrative capacity any appeal that ordinarily lies and is pending before him from the decree or orders of the Munsif. It has however been held by a number of authorities that a Munsif making a complaint u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure is not passing an order within the meaning of Section 22 of Act 12 of 887 and as such the District Judge has no jurisdiction to transfer the appeal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge who also has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Shiva Prasad Vs. Pahlad Singh. In Dulari Koeri Vs. Fauzdar Khan and Another, the same view was also taken. It was held that the Court of the District Judge is the only Court to which the Munsif is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195(3) so that an appeal u/s 477-B can be heard by the District Judge himself and he has no power to transfer an appeal of this nature to the Sub ordinate Judge for hearing. This was also the view taken in Rama Gharan v. Tirupalla Singh ILR Cal. 774. No decision was cited on behalf of the opposite party contrary to this position. This in my opinion represents the correct kind of Law. 5. With respect to the second contention the position is not very clear. Section 476-B says that any person against whom a complaint has been made u/s 476 may appeal to the Court to which such Court is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195(3), and such Court may direct the withdrawal of the complaint. The contention raised here is that the order of the learned Munsif was merely a direction to lodge a complaint, but no complaint was in fact made and as such the appeal before the District Judge was incompetent. This view is also supported by a number of authorities. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ramchandra Soti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, held that the recording of a finding u/s 476 is an act. prior to the making of the complaint and no appeal is provided for u/s 476-B at that stage of the proceeding. This view is also supported by a number of authorities. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ramchandra Soti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, held that the recording of a finding u/s 476 is an act. prior to the making of the complaint and no appeal is provided for u/s 476-B at that stage of the proceeding. An appeal has been provided for after that stage has passed and when a complaint has actually been made. The starting point for an appeal u/s 476 has been: made, is the date on which the complaint is signed by the presiding officer of the Court making the complaint. Here it is not disputed that no such complaint has in fact been filed, nor was any such complaint signed by the learned Munsif when he passed the order u/s 476-E. The same view was also taken in, V.P. Keshava Pillai v. State of Travancore-Cochin AIR 1955 TC 226 . In view of this position of law, there is no doubt about the fact that the appeal filed before the District Judge has no jurisdiction, to transfer the case, to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge and, the latter also had no jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal. The order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge is accordingly set aside. The revision is accordingly allowed. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed