JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 28-2.-1986 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Appeal No. 83/223 of 1984-85, Shivlakhan Singh v. Ramdhania and others. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Shivlakhan Singh filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act 1 of 1951, alleging that plots Nos. 3900 area 3-14-0 and 3913, area 3-14-0, total area 7-8-0 were recorded in the name of plaintiff as cultivator as the land was ancestral property and after the abolition of Zamindari this land could not be recorded in his name, and that the land was taken on lease by the then Zamindar. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought for a declaration in respect of his bhumidhari rights. Defendant No. 3, Ramdhania, son of Shivcharan, filed a written statement alleging that he was bhumidhar of plot No. 3900 and was in possession, that prior to grant of lease this land belonged to Gaon Sabha and was banjar, that the plaintiff was never in possession of the land in dispute, and that the suit was time-barred and was based on fraud. Six issues were framed by the trial court and, after taking evidence of the parties, the suit was dismissed by the trial court. Against that, an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff was not in continuous possession over the land in dispute and as such the suit was properly dismissed by the trial court. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record. 4. I find that both the courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact in respect of possession of the plaintiff' over the land in dispute, and on account of this I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the trial court. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner, while dismissing the appeal, has directed the trial court for proceeding against the plaintiff under sub-section (2) of Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code for filing a complaint under Section 340 of the said Act read with Section 195. Against this, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that a plain reading of Section 340 Cr. Against this, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that a plain reading of Section 340 Cr. P.C. shows that it does not confer any power on the learned Additional Commissioner for directing the trial court for filing a complaint as envisaged in that section. The learned Additional Commissioner says that the trial court should have filed a complaint before a competent court as forged documents were produced before it. 6. Section 344 Cr. P.C. provides the procedure in respect of cases mentioned in Section 195. Section 195 Cr. P.C. deals with prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. Section 195 reads as under:- "195. (1) No court shall take cognizance-(a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate ; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 28 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any court, or (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1), any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court, for the purposes of this section, (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the 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 ordinarily original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate : Provided that- (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate ; (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed." 7. In the instant case, the offence committed appears to fall in category (b) (ii) of Section 195, Cr.P.C., and for that purpose a complaint could be filed in writing by that Court or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Sub-section (4) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. makes it completely clear that a a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, and, in the instant case, the trial court was certainly subordinate to Additional Commissioner's court, where appeal lies against the order of the trial court. Consequently, I am of the view that, a complaint as envisaged under Section 195, Cr.P.C. could be filed either by the learned Additional Commissioner or by the trial court, and if the learned Additional Commissioner has directed that the trial court should file a complaint, after enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the learned Additional Commissioner committed no error of law in doing so. Section 340 Cr. P.C. only provides the procedure in respect of cases mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Now the learned trial court will make enquiries as envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and thereafter file a complaint before a Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. With this observation, this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.