Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with a criminal appeal by certificate against an order of the Allahabad High Court in a criminal revision arising from proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The background was a dispute over possession of a plot of land that was likely to cause a breach of the peace. A Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, attached the property, and called upon parties to adduce evidence. Unable to determine which party was in possession at the relevant date, the Magistrate referred the question to a civil court of competent jurisdiction under Section 146(1) CrPC. The reference went to a Munsiff. Thereafter, one of the parties, respondent No.2, applied to the District Judge under Section 24 CPC for transfer of the case on the ground of bias, and the District Judge transferred it to another Munsiff. The appellants initially acquiesced, but after the transferee court found in favor of respondent No.2 and the Magistrate passed an order under Section 145(6) CrPC, they challenged the validity of the transfer in revision, contending that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction. The core legal issues were whether the District Judge could transfer a reference under Section 146(1) CrPC under Section 24 CPC, whether the reference was to a persona designata, and whether the proceeding before the civil court was a civil proceeding under Section 141 CPC. The appellants argued that the reference was to a persona designata and that the proceeding retained its criminal character, thus CPC did not apply. The respondents, including the State, conceded that the reference was to a constituted court and not a persona designata. The Supreme Court, per Mudholkar J., rejected the appellants' contentions. It held that when a special or local statute refers to a constituted court as a court and not to the presiding officer, the reference is not to a persona designata. The power under Section 146(1) CrPC is to refer to a court, not an individual judge. Relying on Privy Council decisions and its own earlier ruling in South Asia Industries v. S.B. Sarup Singh, the Court held that the provisions of CPC apply generally to proceedings before a civil court arising out of a reference under Section 146(1) CrPC. The Court explained that a proceeding stemming from a criminal matter does not always bear the stamp of a criminal proceeding. It disapproved the Allahabad High Court's view in Sri Sheonath Prasad v. City Magistrate, Varanasi, which had held otherwise. The Court also clarified that the Magistrate's reference does not delegate criminal jurisdiction to the civil court, and the fact that no appeal or revision lies against the civil court's finding under Section 146(1D) CrPC does not mean the proceeding is not civil. Further, the Court interpreted Section 24 CPC, noting that it refers to 'other proceeding' in any court subordinate to it, not merely civil proceedings. The term 'proceeding' is comprehensive and includes all matters coming up for judicial adjudication. Therefore, the District Judge had jurisdiction to transfer the reference. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the High Court was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Reference by Magistrate under Section 146(1) CrPC - Persona Designata - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 146(1) - The Magistrate's power to refer question of possession to a civil court of competent jurisdiction is a reference to a constituted court, not a persona designata; therefore the ordinary jurisdiction and procedure of the civil court attach. Held that the District Judge had jurisdiction to transfer the reference under Section 24 CPC. B) Civil Procedure - Applicability of CPC to Proceedings under Section 146 CrPC - Civil Proceeding under Section 141 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 24, 141 - A proceeding before a civil court arising from a reference under Section 146(1) CrPC is a civil proceeding, and CPC provisions apply generally; Section 24 CPC's phrase 'other proceeding' includes such a reference. Held that the District Judge can transfer the reference. C) Interpretation - Meaning of 'Proceeding' under Section 24 CPC - Scope of District Judge's Transfer Power - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 24 - The term 'proceeding' is comprehensive and not confined to civil proceedings alone; therefore no need to invoke Section 141 CPC for transfer power. Held that the District Judge's order was valid.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge has jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC to transfer a reference made by a Magistrate under Section 146(1) CrPC to another civil court; whether reference under Section 146(1) CrPC is to a persona designata; whether the proceeding before the civil court is a civil proceeding under Section 141 CPC.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the District Judge had jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC to transfer the reference because the reference under Section 146(1) CrPC was to a constituted civil court, not a persona designata, and the proceeding before the civil court was a civil proceeding to which CPC applies. The order of the High Court was affirmed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Where a special or local statute refers to a constituted court as a court and not to the presiding officer
- the reference is not to a persona designata
- the provisions of Civil Procedure Code apply generally to a proceeding before a civil court arising out of a reference under Section 146(1) CrPC
- the term 'proceeding' in Section 24 CPC is comprehensive and includes non-civil proceedings
- a proceeding stemming from a criminal matter does not always bear the stamp of a criminal proceeding.
