Summary jurisdiction over nomination papers does not make a returning officer a Court under criminal procedure law.

An authority exercising summary powers over nomination papers under section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is judicial in character but not a Court for the purposes of section 195(1)(b) and section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because it lacks the essential incidents of a judicial trial, including a lis, evidence-taking, witness summons, and compulsory production of documents. On that basis, offences under section 193 IPC were not treated as offences committed in a Court proceeding, so the appeal against the complaint order was incompetent. The order was not without jurisdiction, however, because the complaint remained competent in relation to offences covered by section 195(1)(a), and the inclusion of section 193 did not invalidate it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the returning officer deciding the validity of a nomination paper under section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a Court for the purpose of section 195(1)(b) and section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether an order directing prosecution under sections 181, 182 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code is appealable or without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme gave the returning officer power to examine nomination papers, decide objections, and hold only such summary enquiry as he considered necessary. The parties had no right to produce evidence, summon witnesses, or compel documents, and the officer could act on his own motion. The function was judicial in character, but the office lacked the essential attributes of a Court because there was no lis to be adjudicated in the manner of a civil or criminal court and no procedure conferring the ordinary incidents of judicial trial. As the officer was not a Court, offences under section 193 committed before him were not offences committed in or in relation to a proceeding in a Court, and the order could not be treated as appealable under section 476-B. The order was also not without jurisdiction, because the complaint was competent at least in relation to the offences falling under section 195(1)(a), and the inclusion of section 193 did not invalidate it.

Conclusion: The returning officer was not a Court for the purpose of section 195(1)(b); the appeal against the complaint order was incompetent, and the challenge to the order as without jurisdiction failed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction-related challenge did not succeed, and the prosecution order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority exercising a summary, quasi-judicial power without the essential incidents of a judicial trial is not a Court for the purpose of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even if its decision affects legal rights.

---