Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Meera Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 1352
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Cr.A. No.4160/2019
Smt. Meera Agrawal
Vs
State of M.P.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.K. Chouksey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sharad Singh, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(20.05.2020) This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Divisional Sagar in Appeal No. 1742(A-21(1)/2017-18 whereby the Commissioner rejected the application under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant.
2. Vide document No. 2558/2020 dated 27.02.2020, the learned counsel for the appellant filed his submission regarding jurisdiction of this Court to hear Appeal under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, same is taken on record.
3. Heard on the question of maintainability.
4. Before the rival contentions of the parties are taken up for consideration, it would be necessary to give a brief resume of facts. It appears from the case that the appellant preferred a second appeal before the Court of Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, against the order passed by the Collector, Panna as well as SDO, Panna, in respect of conversion of land under the MP Grant of 2 Cr.A. No. 4160/2019 Freehold Right in respect of Land on Lease situated in Urban Areas Rules, 2010. In said proceeding, the appellant filed an application under Section 195 r/w Section 340 Cr.P.C. stating that respondent No.1 herein (Ashok Ohari) was posted as Nazul officer/SDO and passed the order dated 10.08.2015 in corrupt manner, his act is covered under Sections 218 and 219 IPC. She further mentioned that respondent No.2 herein (J.S. Baghel) was also posted for a certain period of time as Nazul Officer/SDO and manipulated the order- sheets dated 08.09.2017, 22.09.2017 and 29.09.2017 by mentioning forge dates of hearing and appearance of the appellant, which come under the offence of Sections 420, 218, 219, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The appellant also alleged against respondent No.3 (Namita Mandal) saying that she was Reader at the relevant point of time and involved in the conspiracy of fabricating the order-sheets. Vide order dated 06.03.2019, the Commissioner has rejected the application, hence, this appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on a conjoint reading of the provision of Sections 341 and 195(4) Cr.P.C., this appeal is maintainable before this Court. He further submits that under the MPLRC, Section 44 provides the remedy of appeal and according to it, no appeal can be made before Revenue Board against the order passed by the Commissioner in Second Appeal, hence, the present appeal may be entertained by this High Court.
6. On the other hand, learned PL for the respondent/State opposes the appeal and submits that the Court of Commissioner is sub-ordinate to the Board of Revenue and in view of the provision of 3 Cr.A. No. 4160/2019 Sections 341 and 195(4) Cr.P.C, appeal would not lie before this High Court. Apart from that, the appellant alleged against the Presiding Officers and Reader themselves, saying that they have manipulated the order-sheets of Court proceeding whereas they are the persons who have rights to prepare the order-sheets as the same are Court documents. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. only attracts when any false evidence is given in the case. The order-sheets are not the part of evidence, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the case.
8. Since the issue is with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C, it would be necessary to examine straightway the provisions contained therein. A plain reading of Section 341 Cr.P.C. would indicate that it provides the procedure of appeal in terms of hierarchy of Court mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Therefore, Section 341 Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation, without reading and examining the provisions of Section 195 (4) Cr.P.C. Section 341 Cr.P.C reads as under:-
341. Appeal - (1) Any person on whose application any Court other than a High Court has refused to make a complaint under sub- section (1) or sub-
section (2) of section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such Court, may appeal to the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub- section (4) of section 195, and the superior Court may thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or, as the case may be, making of the complaint which such former Court might have made under section 340, and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly. 4 Cr.A. No. 4160/2019 (2) An order under this section, and subject to any such order, an order under section 340, shall be final, and shall not be subject to revision.
9. Now, I read and reproduced the Section 195(4) Cr.P.C.:-
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence -
1. ** ** **
2. ** ** **
3. ** ** **
4. For the purposes of clause (b) of sub- section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate:
Provided that-
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
10. After precisely reading of the aforesaid provisions to the context of the present case, I find that any person whose application has been rejected by the Court other than a High Court, may file an appeal before the Court to which such former Court is sub-ordinate within the meaning of 195(4) Cr.P.C. As per Section 195(4) Cr.P.C., a Court shall be deemed to be sub-ordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court.
5Cr.A. No. 4160/2019
11. Now, I would like to mention Section 44 of the MPLRC, which provides the provision for appeal against the order passed under the provisions of MPLRC by a competent officer.
44. Appeal and appellate authorities. - (1) Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order of a Revenue Officer competent to pass such order under this Code or the rules made thereunder-
(a) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer- to the Sub Division Officer.
(b) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Deputy Survey Officer- to the Deputy Survey Officer;
(c) if such order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer - to the Collector;
(d) if such order is passed by the Deputy Survey Officer - to the District Survey Officer;
(e) if such order is passed by any Assistant Collector, Joint Collector or Deputy Collector to whom the powers have been conferred under-section 24-to the Collector;
(f) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer in respect of whom a direction has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 12 - to such Revenue Officer as the State Government may direct;
(g) if such order is passed by a Collector or District Survey Officer -to the Commissioner;
(h) if such order is passed by the Commissioner - to the Board.
2. Save as otherwise provided, a second appeal shall lie against every order passed in first appeal under this Code or the rules made there under -
(a) by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Survey Officer or the Collector or the District Survey Officer - to the Commissioner;
(b) by the Commissioner - to the Board.
(3) ** ** **
(4) ** ** **
12. It is clearly reflected from the aforesaid provisions that the Board of Revenue is the appellate authority of the Court of Commissioner and as per the spirit of Section 195(4) Cr.P.C., the appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. shall lie before the Court to which the former Court is sub-ordinate. The fact that any appeal would not 6 Cr.A. No. 4160/2019 lie to the Board of Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner in Second Appeal in the context of original case filed under the provisions of MPLRC, is totally different than that of maintainability of appeal which would arise from the refusal of Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the Commissioner in proceeding of Second Appeal. Moreover, under the MPLRC, there is no provision of appeal before the High Court against the order passed by the Commissioner/Revenue Officer.
13. Therefore, the present appeal cannot be entertain by this Court and the same is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. However, I would prefer to say, this Court confined itself only to the point of maintainability of appeal and no merits have been considered by this Court.
(Rajendra Kumar Srivastava) Judge L.R. Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2020.05.20 16:01:49 +05'30'