TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court clarifies jurisdictional issues in complaint process. High Court's power to set aside orders emphasized.</h1> <h3>Kuldip Singh Versus The State of Punjab and Ors.</h3> Kuldip Singh Versus The State of Punjab and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Senior Subordinate Judge to make the complaint.2. Jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to entertain an appeal against the Senior Subordinate Judge's order.3. Power of the High Court to reverse the Additional District Judge's order in revision.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Senior Subordinate Judge to Make the Complaint:The primary issue was whether the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mr. Pitam Singh, had the jurisdiction to entertain the application and make the complaint under sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Section 195(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits any Court from taking cognizance of certain offences except on the complaint in writing of the Court concerned or a superior Court to which it is subordinate. Section 476-A allows a superior Court to take action if the original Court neither makes a complaint nor rejects the application. The Court found that the offences were committed in the Court of Mr. E. F. Barlow, a Subordinate Judge of the first class. The Senior Subordinate Judge, Mr. Pitam Singh, was not considered a successor to Mr. Barlow. The Court emphasized that subordination for the purposes of section 195(3) is defined by the appellate jurisdiction, and appeals from Mr. Barlow's Court ordinarily lay to the District Court, not to the Senior Subordinate Judge. Consequently, Mr. Pitam Singh had no jurisdiction to make the complaint.2. Jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to Entertain an Appeal Against the Senior Subordinate Judge's Order:The next issue was whether the Additional District Judge, Mr. J. N. Kapur, had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge. The Court examined the Punjab Courts Act and concluded that the Court of the Additional Judge is a distinct class of Court and not a division of the District Court. The Act allows the State Government to appoint Additional Judges to assist the District Judge, but these Judges can only discharge functions assigned to them by the District Judge. The Additional Judge does not have the same jurisdiction as the District Judge and cannot act as a division of the District Court. Therefore, Mr. J. N. Kapur, acting as an Additional District Judge, did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against Mr. Pitam Singh's order.3. Power of the High Court to Reverse the Additional District Judge's Order in Revision:The final issue was whether the High Court had the power to reverse the Additional District Judge's order in revision. The Court noted that the High Court has revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code or section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside an order of a subordinate Court that has assumed a jurisdiction it does not possess. The High Court was correct in setting aside the order of Mr. J. N. Kapur, but it erred in upholding the complaint made by the Senior Subordinate Judge, who had no jurisdiction to make the complaint. The Court concluded that the High Court should have remitted the case to the District Judge for disposal according to law, as only the District Court had the jurisdiction to make the complaint under section 476-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the Senior Subordinate Judge did not have jurisdiction to make the complaint and that the Additional District Judge did not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Senior Subordinate Judge's order. The High Court had the power to set aside the Additional District Judge's order but should have remitted the case to the District Judge for proper disposal. The application for the making of a complaint was accordingly remitted to the District Judge for appropriate action.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
