LexKESHAB NARAYAN BANERJEE AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B KESHAB NARAYAN BANERJEE AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR DECEMBER 16, 1999 [G.T. NANAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950-Compensation Officer-Compensation Officer appointed under the Act is not a Court under Section 195(1) (b) Cr. C P.C.-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-195(J)(b). . D Words and phrases-"Court"-Meaning of in the context of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Tbe appellants were tried before the Special Judge (Vigilance) Patna . It was alleged that in pursuance to a conspiracy, payment of Rs. 2 crores by · way of compensation was fraudulently obtained by them and consequently they had committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467,468, 471 and 473 IPC and under Sections 5 (2) read with Sections 5 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants raised a E preliminary objection that as the aforesaid offences are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced in the compensation proceedings before the Compensation Officer, and as the said Officer under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is a "Court" within the meaning of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P.C. the complaint would have to be filed by that Compensation Officer, and as that had not been done, the Special Judge (Vigilance) had no jurisdiction F to take cognizance of the said offences. The Special Judge having overruled this objection, the appellants moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings. The Division Bench of the High Court, doubted the correctness of a decision of an earlier Division Bench in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Sate of G Bihar, (1975) BBCJ 656 which held that the Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 was a "Court" as defined by Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code. It accordingly referred the matter to a Full Bench of the High Court which held that the Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was not a "Court" within the meaning H of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P.C. Hence this appeal. 394 K.N. BANERJEE v. STATE OF BIHAR 395 Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD : 1.1. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr. P.C. debars the court from taking cognizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 471, 475, 476 Cr. P.C. when offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, except on a complaint in writing of that Court, or B some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. This bar also applies to criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or abetment of such offences. [397-D-E) 1.2. It is not in dispute that the Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, if he is a Tribunal, has not been declared C by that Act to be "Court" for the purposes of section 195 (1) (b). [397-E-FJ 1.3. The High Court was right in holding that the Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was not a "Court" within the meaning of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P.C. [402-D) D 1.4. The word "Court" had a wider meaning under the old Code. While enacting the New Code, Section 195 was redrafted as recommended by the law Commission in its 41st Report. Now the word "Court" dose not include all the judicial bodies and authorities constituted for administering justice. The courts contemplated now by Section 195 are only Civil Courts, Revenue E Courts and Criminal Courts and those Tribunals which are required by the Acts constituting them to be Courts for the purposes of section 195. [400-B, C] 1.5. Assuming that the Compensation Officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 can be said to be a Court, it as not possible to hold F that he is a Civil Court Neither the Act nor any other legislation expressly provides that the Compensation Officer is a Civil Court Though he possesses certain powers which a Civil Court possesses under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the proceedings before him are deemed to be judicial proceedings he does not possess all the attributes of a Civil Court. He lacks G the essential attributes which a Civil Court possesses. Considering the nature of his jurisdiction and the extent of powers conferred on him it has to be said that he is not a Civil Court. Determination of compensation for divesting a tenure holder or an intermediary of his right in the estate or tenure is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.