Dulari Koeri vs Fauzdar Khan and Another

James, J.—In this case the Sub-ordinate Judge of Darbhanga has decided an appeal u/s 476-B, Criminal P.C., which was transferred to him for hearing by the District Judge. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the Court of the District Judge is the only Court to which that of the Munsif is subordinate within;he meaning of Sub-section (3), Section 195, Criminal P.C., so that the appeal u/s 476-B could be heard only by he District Judge himself.

Mr. Janak Kishore suggests that a different rule is laid down in Ramchandra Padhi Vs. Emperor, but in that case the Subordinate Judge had been especially empowered to entertain appeals from the Munsif of Sambalpur.

Similarly in Dinanath v. Muhammad Abdulla AIR 1921 Lah 28 the appeal was held to lie to the Subordinate Judge because a notification had been issued directing that certain appeals from the decision of the Munsif should be preferred to the Subordinate Judge. It is not suggested here that there has been any such notification.

The present case is governed by the decision in Ram Charan Chandra v. Tiripulla Sheikh (1912) 39 Cal 774. In that case the District Judge transferred an appeal u/s 195 from the- order of the Munsif to a Subordinate Judge for hearing and it was held that the appeal must be heard by the superior Court described in Section 195, which is the Court to which appeals from the Munsif ordinarily lie and that the District Judge had no power to transfer an appeal of this nature to the Subordinate Judge for hearing.

No authority at variance with this has been shown to me; and I consider therefore that the order of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and the appeal must be remanded to the District Judge for disposal according to law.