Revenue Court status under Section 195 CrPC bars prosecution unless the statutory complaint or sanction requirement is strictly met.

An Income-tax Collector exercising inquiry and execution powers under the income-tax law was treated as a Revenue Court for Section 195 CrPC because the proceedings were judicial in character: the Collector could summon witnesses, take evidence, administer oath, and decide disputes between the Government and the assessee. On that basis, prosecutions for offences covered by Section 195 required strict compliance with the statutory complaint or sanction requirements. The complaint was not made by the competent public servant or his superior, and the sanction had lapsed, so the prosecution could not be maintained and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an Income-tax Collector is a "Court" or a "Revenue Court" within the meaning of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code for offences connected with proceedings before him; (ii) Whether the complaint and sanction supporting the prosecution were valid under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue (i): Whether an Income-tax Collector is a "Court" or a "Revenue Court" within the meaning of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code for offences connected with proceedings before him.

Analysis: The term "Court" in Section 195 was treated as including a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court. The proceedings before the Income-tax Collector were examined as judicial in character because the Collector could summon witnesses, take evidence, administer oath, and determine disputes between the Government and the assessee. The decision distinguished authorities treating similar revenue inquiries as proceedings of a Revenue Court and held that the inquiry and execution powers under the Income-tax Act placed the Collector within that description for Section 195 purposes.

Conclusion: Yes. The Income-tax Collector is a Revenue Court within the meaning of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint and sanction supporting the prosecution were valid under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis: For the offence under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, previous sanction or a complaint by the proper public servant was necessary, and the sanction had become ineffective by lapse of time. The complaint was also not made personally by the competent public servant or his superior, and delegation could not substitute for the statutory requirement. As the remaining offences also fell within Section 195, the validity of the prosecution depended on the Collector being a Court.

Conclusion: No. The complaint and sanction were invalid, and the prosecution could not be maintained.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution proceedings were unsustainable and were set aside because the statutory requirements under Section 195 were not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: An Income-tax Collector exercising inquiry and execution powers under the Income-tax law is a Revenue Court for the purposes of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and prosecutions for the covered offences cannot proceed unless the statutory sanction or complaint requirement is strictly satisfied.

---