Queen-Empress vs Munda Shetti and Others

We agree with the Sessions Judge that the Tahsildar, when holding an enquiry as to whether transfer of the names in a land register should be

made or not, was a Revenue Court. He was authorized under Act III of 1869 (Madras), to receive evidence and to decide whether transfer

should be made or not. He was. therefore, in our opinion, a tribunal empowered to deal with a particular matter and authorised to receive evidence

bearing on that matter in order to enable him to arrive at a determination; Raghoobuns Sahoy v. Kokil Singh ILR 17 Calc. 872. It appears,

however, that the second accused person alone was a party to the proceeding in the Tahsildar''s Court in which the documents alleged to be

forgeries were produced. The accused persona Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were not parties, and such being the case sanction in their case was not required

u/s 195, Clause (c), of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. We accordingly sot aside the committal to the Court of Sessions in the case of the

second accused and direct that she be discharged, but decline to interfere in so far as accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are concerned.