1924 (6) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge.
2. Nature of proceedings under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
3. Competence of the Subordinate Judge to take action under Section 476, Cr. P. Code.
4. Validity of the documents filed.
5. Procedural correctness of the Sessions Judge's order.
6. Individual culpability of the petitioners.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge:
The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, arguing that the Subordinate Judge was not acting as a Court under Section 476, Cr. P. Code when dealing with the petition under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court found that the Subordinate Judge must be considered a Court for the purpose of Section 83, as the deposit must be made in a Court where a mortgagor might institute a redemption suit. The Court concluded that the Subordinate Judge was competent to take action under Section 476 in relation to the documents filed.

2. Nature of Proceedings under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
The Court examined whether the proceedings under Section 83 were judicial proceedings. It was argued that since no evidence was required to be adduced under Section 83, the documents filed were gratuitous and not used as evidence. However, the Court held that the documents were filed to prove the petitioners' status as mortgagors and came to the notice of the Court in relation to a proceeding before it. Therefore, the Court was competent to take action under Section 476.

3. Competence of the Subordinate Judge to Take Action under Section 476, Cr. P. Code:
The Subordinate Judge had initially refused to take action under Section 476, Cr. P. Code, arguing that the proceedings were not judicial. The Court noted that under the amended Section 476, it was not essential for the proceeding to be of a judicial character. Therefore, the previous refusal did not preclude action under the amended section. The Public Prosecutor's move to the Sessions Judge was deemed appropriate under the new law.

4. Validity of the Documents Filed:
The documents filed by the petitioners were alleged to be forgeries. The Court noted that the documents of 1811 and 1833 were open to grave suspicion based on historical records. The Court did not delve deeply into the authenticity of these documents but acknowledged that they appeared suspicious.

5. Procedural Correctness of the Sessions Judge's Order:
The Sessions Judge forwarded the proceedings to the District Magistrate for inquiry and potential prosecution. The Court found that the Sessions Judge misconceived the provisions of Section 476, which requires the Court itself to make a complaint after necessary inquiry. The Court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the Court to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case against each person before making a complaint.

6. Individual Culpability of the Petitioners:
The Sessions Judge failed to consider the individual cases of the 40 petitioners, including minors and non-signatories of the petition under Section 83. The Court held that the Sessions Judge should have conducted an inquiry to determine the complicity and knowledge of each petitioner before laying a complaint. The order was set aside, and the Sessions Judge was directed to conduct further inquiry into the individual culpability of the petitioners.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and directed further inquiry into the individual complicity and knowledge of the petitioners. The Sessions Judge was instructed to make a complaint under Section 476 against those petitioners he believes to have committed an offense after such inquiry.