l Appeals Nos
152 167 and 167 A of 1951
Appeal from the Judgments dated April 25 and May 1 1950 of the High Court of Judicature for Patiala and East Punjab States Union at Patiala Teja Singh C J and Chopra J in T P A R I A O No 34 of 1950 and Civil Appeals Nos
493494 of Samwat 2005
Rang Behari Lal Ram Nivas Sanghi with him for the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos 167 and 167 A Udai Bhan Chaudhuri for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 152
Lachhman Das Kaushal for the respondent in Civil Appeals Nos 167 and 167 A Ram Nivas Sanghi for the respondent in Civil Appeal No 152
October 24
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J
These appeals are connected and raise a common question of law
They come before us on special leave granted by the Pepsu High Court at Patiala under sub clause e of clause 1 of article 133 of the Constitution 754 The facts in Civil Appeal No 152 of 1951 are different from those in the other two appeals and the consequences are different also
The proceedings arise out of the liquidation of two companies called the Marwari Chamber of Commerce Ltd in Civil Appeal No 152 of 1951 and the Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd in the other two appeals
The Official Liquidator settled the list of contributories and after various steps taken before the Liquidation Judge of the High Court by way of objection on grounds of law as well as on merits there were payment orders on 4th June 1946 in Civil Appeal No 152 of 1951 and on 18th January 1949 in the latter two appeals
The correctness and the validity of the payment order in Civil Appeal No 152 of 1951 was challenged in appeals taken to the High Court by the Official Liquidator and the contributory
The order of the Liquidation Judge was modified in favour of the Liquidator and as against a sum of Rs 4762 13 3 ordered to be paid there was an order for the payment of Rs 24005 7 3
On further appeal by the contributory to the Judicial Committee it was held that the appeal to the Division Bench was barred by time and consequently the judgment of the Bench was set aside and that of the Liquidation Judge restored
This was on 6th December 1949
In the other two appeals an application for removal of the name of the contributory was granted by the Liquidation Judge but on appeal a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this order
On further appeal taken by the company the Judicial Committee Patiala remanded the case for retrial and the Liquidation Judge made an order for payment of Rs 8191 0 9 on 18th January 1949 as aforesaid
On 2nd February 1950 the firm Murari Lal Hari Ram appellant in Civil Appeal No 152 of 1951 filed an application under section 152 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the order of the Liquidation judge Kartar Singh J alleging that there was a 756 clerical or arithmetical error arising from an accidental slip or omission in that a sum of Rs 24005 7 3 was taken as due by the firm instead of the correct figure of Rs 21805 7 3
This application was dismissed by the learned Judge on 16th March 1950
The firm applied to him for a certificate for leave to appeal but this again was dismissed
An appeal was preferred from the order dismissing the amendment petition but it was thrown out on the ground of want of a certificate from the Single Judge
This order is dated 1st May 1950 and is couched in these terms  We have recently held in Ganpat Rai Hira Lal vs Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd LPA Nos 493 and 494 of Samvat 2005 Pepsu that no appeal lies from an order of a Single Bench to a Division Bench without a certificate by the Single Judge that the case is a fit one for further appeal
In this case it is admitted that the appellants made an application for a certificate to the Single Bench from whose decision he is appealing but the same was refused
The appeal is
therefore not competent and is dismissed in limine
 The reference in the order to the case of Ganpat Rai Hira Lal vs Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd LP A Nos 493 and 494 of Samvat 2005 Pepsu is to the order made by the High Court in the connected matter which has given rise to the two Appeals Nos 167 and 167 A of 1951
There an appeal was lodged from the payment order of the Liquidation Judge but it was dismissed on the same ground namely want of a certificate from the Single Judge
In Civil Appeal No 152 of 1951 the argument for the appellant is that no certificate front the Single Judge is necessary as the matter is governed not by Ordinance X of 2005 of the Patiala State but by the Patiala States Judicature Farman Shahi 1999 Bikarmi under which no certificate is necessary
It is true that under section 44 of the earlier Farman a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal is required only if the judgment decree or order sought to be appealed is wade in the exercise of civil 98 756 appellate jurisdiction
It is however clear that we are not governed by this provision
The amendment application was made on 2nd February 1950 as stated already
No appeal is provided under the Civil Procedure Code from an order amending or refusing to amend a judgment decree or order though an appeal would lie from the amended decree or order
There is no warrant for the view that the amendment petition is a continuation of the suit or proceedings therein
It is in the nature of an independent proceeding though connected with the order of which amendment is sought
Such a proceeding is governed by the law prevailing on its date which admittedly is Pepsu
Ordinance X of 2005 and which provides in section 52 for a certificate
The section is in the following terms  Subject to any other provision of law an appeal shall lie to the High Court from a judgment decree or order of one Judge of the High Court and shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two Judges of the High Court Provided that no such appeal shall lie to the High Court unless the Judge who decides the case or in his absence the Chief Justice certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal  So far as the appellant firm is concerned there is no question of any right of appeal vested in it which is sought to be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the Ordinance which came into force in August 1948
The order of the High Court holding that no appeal lies from an order of a single Judge without a certificate by him that the case is a fit one for appeal is in our opinion right
In the other two Appeals Nos 167 and 167 A of 1951 different considerations come into play
The payment order of the Liquidation Judge was on 18th January 1949 and the appeal was preferred on 19th February 1949
In the meantime as there was some doubt on the question the appellants took the precaution of applying to the Judge for a certificate but this was dismissed on 3rd March 1949
On the relevant dates the Patiala States Judicature Farman 1999 was in force and the appellants hood a right of 757 appeal from the payment order without a certificates They could not be deprived of this right by a subsequent change in the law unless the later enactment provides expressly or by necessary implication for retrospective effect being given
The learned Judges of the High Court conceded this in their order but they thought that section 116 of Ordinance X of 2005 1948 49 contained an express provision to the contrary
The section is in these terms Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance all suits appeals revisions applications reviews executions and other proceedings or any of them whether civil or criminal pending in the Courts and before judicial authorities in any Covenanting State shall be continued and concluded respectively in Courts or before judicial authorities of the like status in the Union  and the Courts or authorities in the Union shall have the same jurisdiction in respect of all such suits appeals revisions reviews executions applications and other proceedings or any of them as if the same had been duly commenced and continued in such Courts or before such authorities
 It is fairly obvious that this is a transitory regula tion providing for a change over of proceedings from one set of Courts in the Covenanting State to others of like status in the Union and for their continuance etc
in the latter Courts
It does not say that the proceedings must be treated as having freshly commenced
What is contemplated in the latter part of the section is a notional commencement if such a term could be used
The section obviously means that all rights which arose or are likely to arise in the future shall remain intact notwithstanding the new set up and that they would be dealt with by the Union Courts in place of the Courts of the Covenanting State
There is nothing in the section to justify the view that any taking away of a vested right of appeal retrospectively was intended
The decision in Colonial Sugar Refining Co vs Irving1 clearly applies to the facts and the order of the High Court that 1 758 the appeals are not competent is in our opinion erroneous
The result is that Appeal No 152 of 1951 is dismissed with costs throughout while Appeals Nos 167 and 167A of 1951 are allowed with costs throughout
Appeal No 125 dismissed
Appeals Nos 167 and 167A allowed
Agents for the appellants in Appeals Nos 167 and 167A Mohan Behari Lal
Agent for the appellant in Appeal No 152 Kundan Lal Mehta
Agent for respondents in Appeals Nos 167 and 167A Naunit Lal
Agent for respondent in Appeal No 152 Mohan Behari Lal


Summary:
The Public Prosecutor Kanpur filed a complaint in the Court of Session Kanpur charging the appellants with having published a news item which was false and defamatory of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh
The complaint complied with the requirements of section 198 B Code of Criminal Procedure
The appellants contended that the complaint should have complied with the requirements of section 198 of the Code also and as it was 64 not signed by the Chief Minister the Sessions judge had no jurisdiction to entertain it
Held that it was not necessary for the Chief Minister also to sign the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor
The nonobstante clause  notwithstanding anything contained in this Code  in sub section
1 of section 198 B excludes the operation of the other provisions of the Code relating to initiation and trial of the offence of defamation including section 198
Sub section 13 of section 198 B which provides that the provisions of section 198 B shall be in addition to and not in derogation of section 198 merely preserves the right of the person defamed to file a complaint under section 198
The two sections provide alternative remedies
The provisions in section 198 B relating to the award of compensation to the accused in case of false and frivolous or vexatious accusation do not affect this conclusion
Normally it is the public servant who moves the Government for taking proceedings and under subs
5 he is required to be examined as a witness to support the prosecution and it cannot be said that he has no concern with the lodging of a complaint under section 198 B C B L Bhatnagar vs The State AIR 1958 Bom
196 and R Sankar vs The State ILR 1959 Kerala 195 disapproved