KULDIP SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 125 · Decided: 15-02-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
125 
KULDIP SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. 
[VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. SINHA, 
JAFER IMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.] 
Complaint by Oourt-Oomplaint by Senior Subordinate Judge of 
offences committed in a proceeding before the Subordinate Judge of the 
first class-Validity-Competency of the Additional Judge to enter-
tain appeal-Power of High Court in revision-Gode of Criminal 
Procedure (Act V of 1898), ss. 195 (8), 476, 476-A, 476-B, 489-The 
Punjab Courts Act (VI of 1918), ss. 18, 21-0ode of Civil Procedure 
(Act V of 1908), s. 115. 
The question as to which Court is competent to make a com· 
plaint under s. 476-A read withs. 195(3) of the Oode of Criminal 
Procedure where none was made by the Court in which the offence 
was committed or its successor Court, will depend on the nature of 
the proceeding in which the offence was committed, whether civil, 
criminal or revenue, and on the hierarchy of superior Courts to 
which an appeal from such proceeding will ordinarily lie as con· 
templated by s. 195(3) of the Code, apart from such exception!' as 
may be made in respect of any particular matters by any spe~ 'al 
notifications or laws. Where, however, appeals ordinarily Iii\ .., 
different courts, the one of the lowest grade will be the Court c~ 
patent to make the complaint. 
Wadero Abdul Rahman v. Sadhuram, ([1930) 32 Cr. L.J.1012J 
and M. S. Sheriff'v. Govindan (A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 1060, 1061), not 
approved. 
Under the Punjab Courts Act of 1918 and the hierarchy of 
civil Courts established thereby, appeals from the Courts of the 
various subordinate Judges who constitute distinct Courts do not 
ordinarily lie to the Senior Subordinate Judge but to the· District 
Judge and the Court of the Additional Judge is not a Court of co-
ordinate jurisdiction with that of the District Judge. The Act 
neither mentions nor recognises an Additional District Judge as a 
Court of that hierarchy. 
Consequently, in a case where offences under ss. ·193 and 471 
of the Indian Penal Code were alleged to have been committed in a 
civil proceeding in the Court of a Subordinate Judge of the first 
class, exercising jurisdiction under the Punjab Courts Act of 1918, 
and neither he nor his successor made a complaint or rejected the 
application for the making of it, the Senior Subordinate Judge had 
no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and make the complaint 
either as a Court of appeal under s. 476-B or of its own authority 
under s .. 4 76-A of the Code of Criminal ProceduTe and the Additional 
17 
1956 
February 15 
1956 
l<uldiP Sing!& 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab 
and anothct' 
126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956) 
Judge, liy wrongly describing himself as an Additional District 
Judge, could not assume a jurisdiction which he did. not possess 
under those sections. 
The High Conrt has power to revise orders of subordinate 
Courts made without jurisdiction both under s. 439 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure and under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procednre, 
therefore, it was not necessary to decide under Art. 136 of the Con· 
stitution which of these two sections applied in the present ca.se, but 
the High Court erred in upholding the complaint made by the Senior 
Subordinate Judge because that court had no jurisdiction to make 
the complaint. 
The High Court is not a Court to which the Subordinate Judge 
of the first class is subordinate within the meaning of s. 195(3) of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure and could not, therefore, make the 
complaint of its own authority and should have remitted the appli· 
cation to the District Judge.for disposal according to law. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 34 of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the 7th June 1954 of the Punjab High 
Court at Simla in Criminal Revision No. 985 of 1953 
arising out of the judgment and order dated the 9th 
May 1953 of the Court of the Additional District 
Judge, Ambala. 
Ramalal Anand and I. S. Sawhney, for the appel-
lant. 
Gopal Singh and P. G. Gokhale, for respondent· 
No. I. 
Jindra Lal and Gopal Singh, for respondent 
No. 2. 
1956. February 15. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
BosE J.-This appeal was argued at great length 
because of the wide divergence of judicial opinion 
that centres round sections 195 and 476 of the Crimi-. 
na.l Procedure Code. The question is a.bout the vali-
dity of a complaint made against the appellant for 
perjur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.