Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 598 (KAR)

MUSTHAN BEE v. H. AMIR PASHA

2005-09-15

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2005
ORDER Petitioner being accused 1 in C.C. No.5 of 2005 (P.C. No. 18 of 2004) pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hospet, has sought for quashing the proceedings. The Trial Court has issued process against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 198 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The complaint discloses that the accused has given a false affidavit before the Executive Officer of Town Panchayat and got her name mutated to the exclusion of the complainant. On coming to know of the said fact, the private complaint is lodged, alleging the aforesaid offences. 3. The principle contention raised by the petitioner is that the Court should not have taken cognizance of the offence except on the complaint in writing by the authority concerned. According to the petitioner, as the offence is committed before the Executive Officer of Town Panchayat, the said officer should lodge the complaint. In other words, the Court should not have taken cognizance of the offence based on the private complaint lodged by the private person i.e., respondent herein. 4. Section 193 of the IPC does not come within the purview of Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. Hence, the authority concerned need not file complaint. However, Section 193 of the IPC, it fans under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. It is relevant to note the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) and Section 195(3) of the Cr. P.C. at this stage. Section 195(1)(b) and 195(3) of the Cr. P.C. read thus: "Section 195. P.C. Hence, the authority concerned need not file complaint. However, Section 193 of the IPC, it fans under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. It is relevant to note the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) and Section 195(3) of the Cr. P.C. at this stage. Section 195(1)(b) and 195(3) of the Cr. P.C. read thus: "Section 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.-(1) No Court shall take cognizance.- (a) x x x x x x (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 228, 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 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. Section 195. (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". The aforesaid provisions make it clear that, if the offence is not committed in a judicial proceeding, then it will fall outside Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C., which applies only when the offence is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in Court, and there is, in consequence, no bar to a complaint being made in respect thereof unaffected by the restrictions contained in Section 195(l)(b) of the Cr. P.C. 5. The contention of the petitioner as stated supra, is based on the assumption that the Chief Executive Officer of Town Panchayat is a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code. P.C. 5. The contention of the petitioner as stated supra, is based on the assumption that the Chief Executive Officer of Town Panchayat is a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code. Sub-section (3) of Section 195 legislatively defines the expression "Court" as meaning 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 the section. There are two tests to determine if a particular officer is a Court or not, namely, the authority to take evidence on oath and the authority to render a final decision in the matter. Broadly, what distinguishes a Court from a quasi-judicial Tribunal is that it is charged with a duty to "decide. disputes" in judicial manner and declare the "rights of parties in a definitive judgment". In such process, the parties are entitled as a matter of right, to be heard in support of their claims and to adduce evidence in proof of it. It also imports an obligation on the part of the authority to decide the matter on a consideration of the evidence adduced and in accordance with law. When a question therefore arises as to whether an authority created by an Act is a Court as distinguished from a quasi-judicial Tribunal, what has to be decided is, whether having regard to the provisions of the Act it possesses all the attributes of a Court, as observed in the case of Virindar Kumar Satyawadi v State of Punjab1. 6. The mere fact that the procedure adopted by the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat is of a legal character, will not impart to him the status of Court. The proceedings before Executive Officer do not determine the rights of the parties in a definitive judgment nor is there any finality in such proceedings. It is a familiar feature of modern legislations to set up bodies and Tribunals, and entrust them with work of judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative character, but they are not Courts in the accepted sense of that term, though they may possess some of the trappings of Court. 7. It is not disputed that the authorities constituted by the Act have not been declared to be the "Court" for the purposes of Section 195. Sub-section (3) of Section 195 of the Cr. 7. It is not disputed that the authorities constituted by the Act have not been declared to be the "Court" for the purposes of Section 195. Sub-section (3) of Section 195 of the Cr. P.C., has brought about a change in law. In view of this change, a Tribunal constituted under Central, Provincial or State Act can be deemed to be "Court" only if it is declared to be so by that Act for the purposes of Section 195. As the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat is not declared as Court under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the Court cannot deem the said authority or Tribunal to be a Court. It is no more a question of interpretation, but one of express enactment. Thus, it can be safely concluded that Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat is not a "Court" within the meaning of Section 195 of the Cr. P.C. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that cognizance of the offence could not have been taken except on a complaint by the authority concerned. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the proceedings initiated before the Court below based on the complaint lodged by the respondent herein. Petition is therefore dismissed.