JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an appeal against an order passed on September 25, 1974 by A. K. De, J. in Suit No. 3069 of 1956 in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court rejecting an application filed by the appellant under Section 476 of the code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 195 of the Code now under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code (1973. 2. NANDARANI Dasi, mother of the appellant, filed the suit for recovery of money due on a mortgage. She signed the plaint and the Warrant of Attorney in English as she used to sign her name mostly in English. She got a final decree. She put up for sale the mortgaged properties. In that connection a petition purportedly signed by Nandarani Dasi was filed on 1st of March 1960. The defendants of the suit made an application on 25th July for setting aside the Court's order made on Nandarani's petition. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed on 3rd of August 1960. Nandarani Dasi died on 24th December, 1970. The petitioner on going through the record on 3rd of September 1971 detected that various criminal offences had been committed in the said suit by his brother Murari, his father Kashinath and Murari's wife Nandita, and as such an application as stated above was filled with a prayer that after an enquiry the Court would be pleased to make a complaint in writing against Nandita under Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code, against Nandita, Kashinath and Murari under Section 205/120b of the Indian Penal Code for committing an offence under Section 205 and against Kashinath and Murari under Section 205/109 of the Indian Penal Code to abet the commission of the said offence It is stated in the petition that Nandita falsely personated Nandarani Dasi before the Court interpreter Sri Sur when the affidavit-in-opposition was sworn on 3rd of August, 1960, that Nandarani Dasi did not make the affidavit-in-opposition, that she did not sign and that the signature on it in Bengali was made by Nandita. It is further stated that the three opposite parties entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit that offence and that the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 abetted her to commit the same. On this application a Rule was issued. The opposite parties entered appearance to oppose the Rule but did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. It is further stated that the three opposite parties entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit that offence and that the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 abetted her to commit the same. On this application a Rule was issued. The opposite parties entered appearance to oppose the Rule but did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. The learned Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements made in the petition was of the opinion that it was not expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry into the offences alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties or by any of them. He was of further opinion that neither the statements in the affidavit of the petitioner nor the documents, placed during the hearing made out any case for making a complaint for an offence either under Section 205 or under Section 205/109 or under Section 205/120b of the Indian Penal Code. In that view of his finding the learned Judge discharged the Rule. . Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 3. MR. Dilip Kumar Dutt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the, respondents takes a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal. Mr. Dutt contends that against an order passed by a High Court under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1978 no appeal lies. Section 341 lays down the provisions where an appeal lies against an order passed under Section 340. Section 341 reads as follows:- "1) Any person on whose application any Court other than a, high Court has refused to make a complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 340, on against whom such a complaint has been made by such Court may appeal to the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-sec. (4) section 195. " 4. MR. Dutt draws our attention to Section 476b of the Old Code where it was provided that: "any person on whose application any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court has refused to make a complaint under Section 476 or Section 476 A, or against- whom such a complaint has been made, may appeal to the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of section 195, subsection (3)". The words 'other than a High Court' have been introduced in Section 341 of the new Code and as such it; is clear that under the new Code no appeal lies against an order passed by a Judge of this Court on an application under Section 340. The new Code came into force from April 1, 1974 and the application under Section 340 was filled on 28th of May 1974. There is therefore no doubt that an appeal against an order passed on such application will be governed by the provisions of the new Code. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant however contends that Section 5 of the new Code which is a saving clause saves the provisions contained in clause 15 of the Letters Patent which provides that an appeal lies from an order of a Single Judge to the Division Bench of this Court. Section 5 reacts as follows : - "nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other aw for the time being in force" Mr. Dutt on the other hand contends that Section 5 cannot come in aid to say that though an appeal from an order passed by a Single Judge has been prohibited under Section 341 of the Code yet an appeal will lie because of clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In the Old Code there was no restriction in preferring an appeal from an order passed under Section 476 or Section 476a, but in Section 341 of the new Code it has been clearly provided that no appeal lies against an order passed by this Court on an application under Section 340. A similar question came up for decision in a case before the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 1442 (South Asia Industries vs. Swarup Sing. Their Lordships at page 1443 laid down : "that if a specific enactment makes an order of a Single Judge-conclusive and final, the appeal provided in the Letters Patent will not prevail over such bar; it is only if there is no such bar that the appeal lies under the Letters Patent". Their Lordships at page 1443 laid down : "that if a specific enactment makes an order of a Single Judge-conclusive and final, the appeal provided in the Letters Patent will not prevail over such bar; it is only if there is no such bar that the appeal lies under the Letters Patent". In view of the observations referred to above we have no hesitation to hold that irrespective of any provision in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent "no appeal lies against an order passed by a Judge of this Court on an application under Section 340 of the Code. We therefore hold that this appeal is not maintainable. With regard to merits we fully agree with the learned Judge that the petitioner has not been able to make out even a prima facie case and that being so, the learned Judge was quite right in not making any enquiry into the complaint and in rejecting the application. The alleged signature was made on August 3, 1960. Nandarani died in 1970 and it was only on 28th May 1974 that the petitioner comes with a story that the signature of Nandarani Dasi was not made by Nandarani and it was made by Nandita and that Nandita falsely personated Nandarani. It has not been stated in the petition that the petitioner saw Nandita to sign Nandarani's name on the affidavit-in-opposition. It has also not been stated that the petitioner was acquainted with. Nandarani's or Nandita's signature As such he cannot assert that the signature on the affidavit-in-opposition. was not of Nandarani but that of Nandita. It may be that the signature! appearing in affidavit-in-opposition is not of Nandarani but that by itself cannot make out a case that it was Nandita who signed as Nandarani The mere fact that the signature was made in presence of the Court interpreter does not establish even prima facie that it was Nandita who appeared before the Court interpreter and put her signature, as Nandarani. The person who put the signature was not identified before the Commissioner of affidavits and we understand there is no such practice of identification in the original side. The person who put the signature was not identified before the Commissioner of affidavits and we understand there is no such practice of identification in the original side. In such circumstances, the learned Judge was quite right to hold that no case of false personating has been made out and in that view of his finding he was surely correct to say that no case of conspiracy or abetment could be made out. The learned Judge noted the fact that for this very Act the petitioner previously filed an application under Section 476 of the old Code and the same was rejected. After that, the petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 465j471 of the Indian Penal Code and that the said case is pending for trial before the learned Magistrate. For the reasons stated above we do not find anything to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge, in the result, this appeal is dismissed. Costs as are permissible under the Rules are allowed. Certified for Counsel. Appeal dismissed.