Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Question to be decided is as to which is the forum to which an appeal would lie from an order passed by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Incidentally, question also arises as to what would be the type of appeal and which is the forum to consider such appeal and also as to what should be the procedure to be adopted?

6. With respect to the remedy available against an order passed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., Section 341 Cr.P.C. provides an appeal, when such order is passed by any court other than a High Court. The appeal is provided when the court refused to make an order under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The remedy of appeal is also available to a person against whom a complaint under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been made out. Section 341 provides that such appeal should be filed in the court to which the former court which passed the order is superior, within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling in K. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala(AIR 2009 SC 1898) held that, on consideration of sub-section (2) of Section 341, it is evident that an order under Section 341 and subject to any such order, an order under Section 340, shall be final and shall not be subject to revision. Hence there is a legal embargo created against filing any revision against an order under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The finding is that, a revision is clearly barred under Section 341(2) Cr.P.C. against any order passed under Section 340 or Section 341 of Cr.P.C.

8. In Lalit Mohan v. Benoyendra Nath (AIR 1982 SC

785), the hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, an order passed in an appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C., would not be revisible by a High Court under Section 397(2) of the Code, but there can be no doubt that the High Court is entitled to examine the matter under Section 482 of the Code, which expressly overrules the bar contained in Section 341(2) of the Code. The said principle has been followed by a learned Single Judge while deciding the case in Jose Kuruvinakunnel v. Jose(1997(1) KLT 150). It is held therein that, as against the judgment of the appellate court in an appeal filed against an order passed by the trial court in a proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., no revision will lie to this court under Section 115 C.P.C. It is further held that though a revision against the judgment in an appeal is sustainable before the High Court under provisions of the Cr.P.C., it will lie only under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as no revision will lie under Section 397 Cr.P.C. because of the provision under sub-section (2) of Section 341 Cr.P.C.

9. It is pertinent to note that, another learned Judge of this court in Rocky v. Pavunni (2015(1) KLT 547) held that, where an order under Section 340 is passed by a civil court, appeal will lie before an appellate court on the civil side and not before a Sessions Court under Section 341 of the Code. With due respect, we may say that, the said decision is per incuriam, as it had not considered the earlier legal precedents remaining settled.

10. Based on the principle enumerated as above, it is unequivocally clear that the remedy against an order passed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is by way of an appeal to the court which is superior to the court which passed such an order. As already discussed above, the appeal provided under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable before a court to which the court passed an order under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is subordinate, within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195. It is clarified in sub-section (4) of Section 195 that, 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 is situate. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. Sarma Rao and others[(2007) (2) SCC 159 held that, the hierarchy of courts under Section 195 will have to be determined on having regard to the nature of proceedings and statutes, under which the same is required to be determined. Subordination of the courts, as specified in Section 3 of CPC is only for the purpose of the said Code and not for the purpose of any special Act, although the provisions thereof may be applicable to a case arising thereunder. It was found that, sub-section (4) of Section 195 must be read with sub-section (3) thereof. Sub-section (3) broadly divides the courts into Civil, Revenue or Criminal, as also Tribunals constituted by or under a special statute. If a statute constitutes such a Tribunal and decide it to be a court for the purpose of the said section, Section 195 of Cr.P.C. shall apply. It is thus the Presiding Officers of the forums only, which are specified under sub-section (3) of Section 195 Cr.P.C., who may file a complaint petition in relation to the offences pending under Sections specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is only for the purpose a legal fiction has been created, stating that the court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie. If the appeals exclusively lies to the High Court, the court will become subordinate to the High Court and not to the principal civil court, though appeal may lie before the latter from the judgment and decree passed by it in a suit which may be filed before it. Therefore, the principle enunciated is that, if a Tribunal had passed an order under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the appellate court for the purpose of Section 341 would be the appellate court under the relevant statute. In the above decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. Sarma Rao(supra), on the basis of the said principle, it is held that, if a civil court is exercising powers under the Land Acquisition Act, the normal appellate court is the High Court and it become the appellate court for the purpose of Section 341 Cr.P.C.

12. From the dictum settled through the decisions cited above, it is clear that, even if an order under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is passed by a civil court or by a Tribunal, such order need to be construed as an order passed in a criminal proceedings. Incidentally, it is to be noticed that, Rule 66 of the Criminal Rules of Practice(Kerala) specifically provides that, every application under Section 340 of the Code shall be filed as a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. There is no doubt as to the remedy available against an order passed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., whether it is passed by a criminal court or a civil court or by a Tribunal, it is by way of an appeal as provided under Section 341 Cr.P.C. to the higher court subordinate to which is the court which passed the order. With reference to Section 195(4), from the case law remaining settled, it is evident and clear that in the case of a civil court such appeals lie to the higher court to which a decree passed by such civil court can ordinarily be appealed against. If it is in a case of a Sub Court, the higher court to which the appeal would lie will be decided on the basis of the jurisdictional parameters. With respect to any Tribunal constituted under any particular statute, such appeals need to be filed before the court of appeal designated in that statute, to which an appeal will normally lie from orders passed by such Tribunal. In the case at hand, the order impugned is passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The order impugned is unquestionably one passed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The appellate court designated under the Motor Vehicles Act for filing an appeal against the Awards passed by the Tribunal is the High Court. Therefore there is no doubt that an appeal under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. shall be maintainable before the High Court, against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 340 Cr.P.C.