ORDER S. Malik, J. - By his order dated 10-1-1969 Shri Harish Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, has made this reference recommending that the order dated 15-7-1968 passed by Shri R.P. Gupta, Judicial Officer, Bidhuna, District Etawah, rejecting an application moved before him by the accused-Applicants to be set aside and the charges framed by the learned Magistrate against the accused be quashed. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. According to the allegations made against the accused, they committed an offence of assault within the meaning of Section 351 IPC punishable u/s 353 IPC by using abusive language against the, Sub-Registrar and by taking a threatening attitude to beat him with a shoe. It is said that this was done while the Sub-Registrar was actually working in his office and busy registering documents at about noon on 9-5-1967. 4. According to the learned Sessions Judge, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. The State of UP 1967 AWR 204 (2), as the Sub-Registrar is said to have been busy registering documents, he must be deemed to have constituted a court within the meaning of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure and as it is said that he was insulted and interruption was caused in his work within the meaning of Section 228 IPC, white the Sub-Registrar, a public servant, was sitting during a judicial proceeding (registering documents) a complaint ought to have been filed by the Sub-Registrar as laid down in Section 195(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge that under the circumstances the accused should have been charged with an offence punishable u/s 228 IPC provided a complaint had been made by the Sub-Registrar as laid in Section 195(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure and as this was not done, the charges framed against the Applicants should be quashed. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the allegations made against the accused do not constitute an offence punishable u/s 353 IPC. 5. I am afraid it is not possible to accept either of the two contentions put forward by the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that when the High Court decided the case (supra), the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure were not brought to its notice. 5. I am afraid it is not possible to accept either of the two contentions put forward by the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that when the High Court decided the case (supra), the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure were not brought to its notice. In Sub-section (2) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure it is clearly laid down: In Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) the term "Court" includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, but does not include a Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the Indian Registration Act, 1877. In view of this statutory provision of law it could not be said that the Sub-Registrar constituted a Court while registering documents and when the incident is said to have taken place. Under the circumstances, the Sub Registrar could not have lodged a complaint as laid down in Section 195(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incident in question. Ordinarily, in view of the observations made by this Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. The State of UP (supra), I would have requested the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to refer this case to a larger Bench, had it appeared that while deciding the case the Court had considered the provisions laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure or that the language of Sub-section (2) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure was not clear or was ambiguous requiring an interpretation of the provisions by a competent court. As has been pointed out, the provisions laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure are clear and definite and it may be repeated that these provisions do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Court while it was deciding the case Radhey Shyam Gupta v. The State of UP (supra). 6. In view of the allegations made against the accused, I see no reason to interfere with the charges framed by the learned Magistrate against them. It would be a matter of evidence as to whether the charges u/s 353 IPC is established against the accused or not and it would not be proper for this Court to comment on the merits of the case at this stage. 7. Under the circumstances, I see no force in this reference and reject it. It would be a matter of evidence as to whether the charges u/s 353 IPC is established against the accused or not and it would not be proper for this Court to comment on the merits of the case at this stage. 7. Under the circumstances, I see no force in this reference and reject it. Let the record be sent back to the court below at an early date to enable the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case. Reference rejected.