Varadarajulu Naidu vs Emperor

Lakshmana Rao, J.—This is a Reference by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, and the questions referred are: (1) Whether the

complaint preferred in, pursuance of an order passed by the Officiating Chief Justice on an office note is an. order passed by the Court within the

meaning of Section 476, Criminal P.C. (2) Whether the Officiating Chief Justice could pass an order u/s 176, Criminal P.C., in a case where no

orders were passed u/s 476, Criminal P.C., either by the trial Judge or his successor or the appellate Bench that decided the Original Side appeal

against the judgment and decree in C.S. No. 542 of 1931. (3) Whether the Officiating Chief Justice could be deemed to be the successor to the

trial Judge who decided C.S. No. 542 of 1931 in the exercise of the original civil jurisdiction.

The facts are set out in the order of reference, and briefly stated, they are that during the trial of C.S. No. 542 of 1931 on the file of the High

Court, two documents dated 10th March 1928 and 10th May 1928, purporting to be certified copies of orders dated 2nd March 1928 and 26th

April 1928 alleged to have been passed in O.P. No. 38 of 1928, were filed on behalf of one of the defendants. The trial Judge, the present Chief

Justice, found that the documents were fabricated and used by Varadarajulu Naidu, one of the defendants in the suit, knowing them to be such,

and the matter was under the directions of the trial Judge reported to the police for necessary action. The police filed a charge-sheet against

Varadarajulu Naidu u/s 471 read with Section 466, I.P.C., and he was committed to the High Court Sessions for trial. There was however no

complaint in writing by the High Court as required by Section 195, Criminal P.C., and the order of committal was quashed by Cornish, J. on the

ground that the offence u/s 471, I.P.C., cannot be taken cognizance of except on the complaint of the Court in which the documents were given in

evidence. The Original Side office then put up a note to the Officiating Chief Justice setting out the entire facts, and the Officiating Chief Justice

passed an order u/s 476, Criminal P.C., directing the Registrar to make a complaint u/s 471 read with Section 466, I.P.C. The complaint was filed

accordingly and process was issued to the accused. ''Objection was taken by him to the validity of the complaint and hence this reference.

The order was in terms passed u/s 476, Criminal P.C., and the real question is whether the Officiating Chief Justice had no jurisdiction to pass

the order. The complaint required by Section 195, Criminal P.C., is the complaint of the Court in which the documents were given in evidence and

not of the trial Judge, and as pointed out in Bai Kasturbai Vs. Vanmalidas Lakmidas, , when a suit is tried by a Judge of the High Court, the term

''Court'' occurring in the section must be taken to mean ""the High Court"". There is nothing to prevent any Judge of the High Court from dealing with

the matter though as a matter of convenience this would seldom be done, and the matter was in this case placed before the Officiating Chief

Justice, as the trial Judge was absent at the time. The Court may, u/s 476, Criminal P.C., make the complaint on the application made to it or

otherwise, and it need not hold a preliminary enquiry. Notice to the person proceeded against is not essential, and it is apparent from the order

itself that it was passed by the Officiating Chief Justice in the exercise of ordinary original jurisdiction. There is therefore no substance in the

contention that the Officiating Chief Justice had no jurisdiction to pass the order u/s 476, Criminal P.C., and questions 1 and 3 do not arise. The

proper course for the accused was to appeal against the order u/s 476, Criminal P.C., and it is queer that objection should have been raised and

permitted before the Magistrate. The reference is answered accordingly and the records will be retransmitted to the Chief Presidency Magistrate

for proceeding with the case according to law.