minal Appeal No 157 of 1965
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 1 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Misc
No 8 of 1964 in Cr
Revision No 1375 of 1963
Nishat Singh Grewal Ravindra Bana and O P Rana for the appellants
R N Sachthey for the respondent No 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab dismissing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No 8 of 1964
This petition arose out of the following facts
Bhagwant Rai and Chhota Ram were tried under section 325 IPC read with section 34 IPC in the Court of Shri Harish Chander Gaur Magistrate 1st Class Patiala
Ajaib Singh Sub Inspector one of the appellants before us had investigated the case
The Magistrate by his order dated April 5 1957 acquitted both the accused and inter alia observed that Bhagwant Rai had been falsely implicated in the case as he was not even present on the day of the occurrence at Patiala
On the application of Bhagwant Rai Shri Joginder Singh Karam garhia  Magistrate 1st Class Patiala who succeeded Shri Harish Chander Gaur filed a complaint under sections 193 195 211 and 120B IPC on October 31 1958 against six persons including the appellants Ajaib Singh and Malkiat Singh
Shri O P Gaur
Magistrate First Class by his order dated June 1 1959 discharged the accused holding that the complaint was not competent as it was barred by sub section
6 of section 479A Cr
PC because the complaint had not been filed by or directed to be filed by Shri Harish Chander Gaur who had disposed of the case ending in the acquittal of Bhagwant Rai
In the revision filed against this order the Additional Sessions Judge upheld this view
The High Court Capoor J on revision found it unnecessary to consider the scope of section 479A Cr
PC vis a vis section 476 Cr PC because two of the offences mentioned in the complaint namely
s211 and section 120B IPC did not fall within the purview of s479A Capoor J further held that section 42 of the Police Act1861 had no application to a case in which a complaint was made by the Court under section 476 Cr
PC Capoor J also held that as the order of Shri Joginder Singh Magistrate directing the making of the complaint against the respondents was not appealed from and had become final the competency of the Court to make the complaint under section 211 IPC against Jaswant Singh one of the accused could not be considered at that stage
The High 147 Court accordingly set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and directed that the respondents be proceeded against according to law
On the case going back fresh objections were filed before the Magistrate trying the case but these were overruled
Revision was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge who accepted the prayer of Kirpal Singh and recommended to the High Court that the criminal proceedings pending against him in the Court of Magistrate First Class Patiala might be quashed
He however declined to interfere with the proceedings pending against the appellants mainly on the ground that the objections now taken by them before the Trial Magistrate had been heard and finally disposed of by Capoor J in his order dated April 4 1961
In the meantime the appellants put in Criminal Miscellane ous Petition No 8 of 1964 in criminal revision in the High Court praying that along with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Patiala for quashing the criminal proceedings against Kirpal Singh the grounds urged by them might also be taken into consideration
Capoor J accepted the recommendation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Patiala and quashed the criminal proceedings against Kirpal Singh
He however directed that Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No 8 of 1964 should be placed before another Bench for disposal
The matter was then placed before Sharma J who held that all the points urged in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition had been taken into consideration and repelled by Capoor J in his order dated April 4 1961
Sharma J observed  The learned counsel however omitted to take note of the fact that the revision petition finally was accepted in the terms As the order under revision is not legally sustainable it must be set aside and the respondents must be proceeded with according to law  Therefore what the order said was that the criminal case as a whole was to proceed against all the respondents and so the petitioners could not be heard now to say that the case was remanded to the trial court for trial of the respondents for offences punishable under sections 211 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code
In the circumstances the trial Court cannot be said to have misconstrued the order of Capoor J The other grounds urged by them in the Criminal Miscellaneous as already pointed out by me were taken into consideration by Capoor J and findings given against the petitioners and that being so these cannot be agitated again at this stage
 148 He accordingly dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
The appellants having obtained special leave the appeal is now before us
The learned counsel for the appellants contends that on the facts prosecution for offences under sections 193 and 195 IPC was barred under section 479A6 Cr
In our opinion this contention must be accepted in view of the ruling of this Court in Shabir Hussain Bholu vs State of Maharashtra1 and Baban Singh vs
Jagdish Singh2
The learned counsel next contends that the complaint could only be filed by the Magistrate before whom the original proceedings were taken
He says that according to section 195 1 b Cr PC a complaint in respect of sections 193 195 and 211 IPC can only be made by the Court in which the proceedings out of which the offences arose took place
We see no force in this contention
Section 559 enables a successor in office of a Magistrate to file a complaint
The relevant portion of section 559 reads as follows  559
1 Subject to the other provisions of this Code the powers and duties of a Judge or Magistrate may be exercised or performed by his successor in office
2 When there is any doubt as to who is the successor in office of any Magistrate the Chief Presidency Magistrate in a Presidency town and the District Magistrate outside such towns shall determine by order in writing the Magistrate who shall for the purposes of this Code or of any
proceedings or order thereunder be deemed to be the successor in office of such Magistrate This section was substituted for the original section 559 by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act XVIII of 1923
Since the amendment it has been held and we think rightly that a successor in office of a Magistrate can file a complaint under section 476 Cr
PC in respect of an offence under section 195 IPC committed before his predecessor
See Behram vs Emperor3 Bara Bapen Manjhi vs Gopi Manjhi4 and In re Subramaniam Chettiar5
This section applies to all Magistrates and there is no reason why the plain terms of the section should be cut down to limit it as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant to Magistrates whose courts are permanent
It seems to us further clear that sub s2 has not the effect of limiting s5591Section 5592 applies when there is a doubt as 1 1963 Supp 1 SCR 501
3 108
2 AI R 4 A 1
R 1927 Pat
5 A 1
R 149 to who the successor is and that doubt can be resolved in the manner laid down in sub section
The sub section does not mean as contended by the learned counsel that until a successor is determined under sub section
2 there is no successor for the purposes of sub section
If there is no doubt about who the successor is then that person can exercise the powers under sub section
We accordingly hold that the complaint was properly filed by Shri Joginder Singh Karamgarhia  Magistrate
There is equally no force in the third point raised by he learned counsel that section 42 Police Act creates a bar and the prosecution is time barred under this section
This Court held in Mulud Ahmed vs State of UP 1 that section 42 Police Act does_not apply to prosecutions under the Indian Penal Code or other Acts
Subba Rao J as he then was observed The period of three months prescribed for commencing a prosecution under this section is only with respect to prosecution of a person for something done or intended to be done by him under the provisions of the Police Act or under general Police powers given by the Act
Section 42 does not apply to prosecution against any person for anything done under the provisions of any other Act
A combined reading of these provisions leads to the conclusion that section 42 only applies to a prosecution against a person for an offence committed under the Police Act but the prosecution in the present case was for an offence under section 212 of the Indian Penal Code which is an offence under a different act and for which a much higher punishment is pres cribed
By reason of section 36 of the Police Act section 42 thereof cannot apply to such a prosecution
 The fourth point which the learned counsel urges is that the complaint only discloses two offences under section 193 and section 195 IPC and no other and it was an abuse of the process of the Court
There is no force in this contention as the complaint on its face mentions sections 193 195 211 and 120B
The learned counsel finally urges that the complaint had been filed because of a private feud and it is not in the interest of justice that the complainant should be allowed to proceed with the complaint
This point was not taken in the High Court at any stage and we do not allow it to be raised at this stage
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed
YP Appeal dismissed
1 1963 Supp 2 SCR 38 44 45


Summary:
A magistrate acquitted Bhagwant Rai of the charge under sections 32534 IPC and observed that he had been falsely implicated
The magistrate s successor in office the respondent filed a complaint under sections 193 195 211 and 120B IPC against the appellants
The appellants con tended that i prosecution for offences under sections 193 and 195 IPC was barred under section 479A6 Cr
PC ii according to section 1951b Cr
PC only the Magistrate before whom the original proceedings were taken could file the complaint in respect of sections 193 195 and 211 IPCiiis
42 of the Police Act barred the prosecution as it was commenced after the period prescribed and iv the complaint only disclosed two offences under sections 193 and 195 IPC and no other
HELDThe appeal must be dismissed
i In view of the ruling of this Court in Shabir Husain Bholu vs State of Maharashtra and Baban Singh vs Jagdish Singh the prosecution for offences under sections 1913 and 195 IPC was barred under section 479A6 Cr
PC 148 B ii The complaint was properly filed by the successor in office of the Magistrate
Section 559 Cr
PC enables a successor in office of a Magistrate do file a complaint
This section applies to all Magistrates
and there is no reason to limit it to Magistrates whose courts are perma nent
Sub section
2 has not the effect of limiting section 5591
Section 5592 applies when there is a doubt as to who the successor is and that doubt can be resolved in the manner laid down in sub s2
The subsection does not mean that until a successor is determined under sub s2 there is no successor for the purpose of sub section
148 F H149 A Behram vs
Emperor 108 Bara Bapen Manihi vs Gopi Manjhi AIR 1927 Pat
In re Subramanian Chettiar AIR 1957 Mad 442 followed
iii Section 42 of the police Act does not apply to prosecutions under the Indian Penal Code or other Acts
149 C Mulad Ahmad vs State of UP 1963 Supp 2 SCR 38 44 45 followed
iv As the complaint on the face of it mentioned sections 193 195 211 and 120B so there was no force
in the contention that the complaint only disclosed two offences under sections 193 and 195 IPC and no other F149 F 146