LexSTATE OF A.P. versus V. SARMA RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF A.P. A v. V. SARMA RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC. NOVEMBER IO, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974-Sections 195 and 340 - Fraud in awarding land acquisition compensation involving Sub-ordinate judge of Civil Court, notified by State for handling reference from awards of Land Acquisition Collector, his staff, advocates and other officials-Inquiry under C Section 340 by District Judge and his complaint pursuant to it - High Court holding that Sub-ordinate judge of Civil Court was its sub-ordinate, and no~ of District Judge; therefore, inquiry conducted by District Judge was impermissible and High Court itself had to conduct that inquiry • Correctness. of-Held-Though Court of Sub-ordinate judge was subordinate to District. D Judge for administrative purpose and also under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it was not subordinate in relation to proceeding under special statutes like Land Acquisition Act, 1898-Jt was more so as Civil Courts had no jurisdiction in relation to matters falling within the purview of Act of 1989- As appeals from award of Court of Sub-ordinate judge lay exclusively to High Court, it was subordinate to High Court-Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. recognised E judicial discipline with regard to right of higher authority to exercise appellate powers; it did not recognise administrative discipline. Words and phrases-'Ordinarily '-Jn context of Section 195(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974. State Government acquired certain lands and awards in that respect were made by the Land Acquisition Collector. Owners of the land preferred references against the awards to the Sub-ordinate judge of Civil Court notified F by State for that purpose. Allegedly, a large scale fraud took place in awarding compensation wherein the Sub-ordinate Judge, his staff, advocates of the G claimants as well as those appearing for the State, and other officials were said to be involved. Since allegations against the accused came within the purview of the offences specified under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, an inquiry under Section 340 tllereof was conducted by 859 H 860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] S'JPP. 8 S.C.R. . ·A District Judge, who after examining a number of witnesses, filed a complaint pursuant to his findings. An appeal came to be filed against that by respondents before the High Court, and same was allowed. High Court held that Sub- ordinate judge of Civil Court was its sub-ordinate, and not of the District Judge, since all appeals from award of Sub-ordinate judge under Land Acquisition Act of 1898 lay to the High Court. Therefore, the inquiry B conducted by the District Judge was impermissible and High Court itself had to conduct that inquiry. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-State contended that in terms of Section 53 of the Act of 1898, Sub-ordinate judge of Civil Court was governed by Code of Civil Procedure, C 1908 wherein it was sub-ordinate to the District Judge, and hence requirements of Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code were fulfilled. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A Court of Subordinate Judge may be subordinate to District D Judge for administrative purpose. He may be a court subordinate to it under the Code of Civil Procedure. But in relation to a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, it would not be. In terms of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 the procedures laid down under the Civil Procedure Code would apply but the same is subject to the exceptions specified therein, viz., save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained therein. E Land Acquisition Act is a special statute. It provides for the forums both original and appellate. Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines 'district' to mean the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, also known as District Court. It also includes local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. F Section 3 thereof provides hierarchy of the courts. What is of significance is that the subordination of courts as specified therein is only for the purpose of the said Code and not for the purpose of a special Act, although the provisions thereof may be applicable to a case arising thereunder. Section 96 of the Code provides that an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising origin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.