LexGOVIND MEHTA versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-·
.-.-J
=i
•J
GOVIND MEHTA
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
May 7, 1971
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 195(1)(c), 476--Transfer applica·
tions before District Magistrate ·of cases pending before magistrate-Magis-
trate charged with offence under s. 471 for committing forgery on the order
sheets of the cases on complaint by District Public Prosecutor-AppUcabi-
lity of bar of s. 195(1) (c)-Magistrate cannot be said to be "party 10 any
prar:eeding in any court."
When the appellant came to know that transfer applications had been
filed in respect of certain cases on his file he recorded orders on the order-
sheets ,of the cases making serious allegations against the District Magis-
trate before whom_Jhe transfer applications were pending to the effect that
the latter was attempting . interfere with the course of justice in the pro-
ceedings connected with the cases.
The Additional District Magistrate,
who heard the transfer applications sent a report for initiation of pro ..
ceedings against the appellant for having committed forgery in the order·
sheets. On a complaint by the District Prosecutor the appellant wa'J COpl·
mitted to the sessions to take trial under ss. 167, 466 and 471 Penal Code.
The appellant filed applicatiOns questioning the legality of the trial on the
grounds that the mandatory provisions of ss. 195 and 476 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure were not complied with.
These were rejected by
the Sessions Judge. Revisions to the High Court were also dismissed. In
appeal to this Court it was contended : (i) the authoriiy to file the com-
plaint against the appellant was the Court to which the appellant was sub-
ordinate at the material time as is mandatory under s. 195(1)(b) and (c) and,
therefore, cognizance could not be taken of the complaint filed by the
District Prosecutor; and (ii} there was violation of the mandatory· provi-
sions of s. 476 of the Code, inasmuch as the complaint Was not filed by
the Additional District Magistrate.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: (i) The High Court has, after analysis and very elaborate
consideration, come to the conclusion that the charge framed under s. 167
of the Penal Code is justified. Therefore, the contention that with a view
to evading tbe .bar of cl. (b) of s. 195(1) the prosecution adopted the device
of not charging the appellant under s. 193, Penal Code, cannot be accept-
ed. As the charge has been framed under s. 167, the bar under s. 195(1)(b)
and le) has no application. [782F, G]
(ii) The offence under s. 466, Penal Code, is not covered by els. (b)
or (c) of s. 195(1). Therefore s. 195 does not operate as a bar in respect
of this offence. [783A]
777
A
B
c
D
E
G
(iii) Thoueh s. 471 of the Code is taken in by cl. (c) of s. 195(1), for
the clause to operate as a bar to taking cognizance of an offence under
s. 471 it is essential that the offence must be alleged to have been commit·
H
ted "by a party to any proceeding in any Court". Merely on the basis that
the applications for transfer of certain cases pending before the appellant
had been filed making allegations against the appellant will not make the
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
A
appellant a party to those proceedings.
He was functioning as Magistrate
and had no personnel interest in the outcome of the transfer applications.
Therefore, cl. (c} of s. 195(1) also does not bar the jurisdiction of the
magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under s. 47 L of th(" Code.
[783B, G]
(iv) Because s. 195(1) (b) or (c) does not apply \o the case of the
appellant section 476 of the Code does not come into the picture.
Even
B
otherwise, the section does not apply for the reason that the order of t..ie
;\dditional District Magistrate clearly sho\vs that all the findings recorded
against the appellant were only reasons for transferring the cases from the
file of the appellant ; the Additional District Magistrate himself had nol
taken any action as contemplated under s. 476 of the Code.
[784B, F]
c
D
E
F
G
H
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
Criminal Appeal No.
l54 of 1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
December 16, 1968 of the Patna High Conrt in Criminal Revision
Nos. 345 end 346 of 1968 and Criminal Misc. Nos. 248 and 24'>
ot 1968.
Jyoti Narain, S. N. Misra and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
R. C. Prasad for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court wExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.