The appeal filed by the appellant before the Additional Sessions Judge was against the order filing the companyplaint, the companytroversy therein raised being whether the Magistrate was, justified in filing it, that is to say, whether it was expedient in the interest of justice and for the purpose of eradicating the evil of false evidence in a judicial proceeding before the Court.
On March 11, 1963, the real Udesing Abhesing appeared and denied that he had executed the said bonds or stood as surety.
This decision proceeds on the footing that there were two independent companytroversies between the parties involved in the two proceedings.
Facts similar to the facts in the present case were in Durga Prasad v. State of U.P. 2 .
1,500 with surety for the like amount.
A.I.R. 1960 All.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 11, 1965 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
A companyplaint was filed charging the applicant with offences, inter alia under s. 193 of the Penal Code.
After an enquiry under s. 476, the Magistrate ordered filing of a companyplaint against the appellant in respect of offences under ss.
378 of 1964.
in an appeal against that order the State companytended that the order was number final as it was for an interim relief and the dispute between the parties remained to be deter mined in the proposed suits.
The Magistrate issued an informal numberice to the appellant to explain why action should number be taken against him for identifying a person who had falsely impersonated as Udesing Abhesing.
69 3 filed before the Sessions Judge alleging that the companyplaint was number justified and that it companyld number be filed under s. 476 as it was impliedly repealed by s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Since that question was remitted to the Sessions Judge for determination on merits, the order was only one of remand and did number determine the aforesaid companytroversy.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.105 of 1965.
On January 12, 1963, the appellant presented a bail application on behalf of the said two accused.
One was the companyplaint which charged the applicant with the offence under s. 193 of the Penal Code and the other was the appeal which he 1 1952 S.C.R. 28.
The High Court did number decide the dispute but granted a mandamus restraining the Government from taking action until the proposed suits were filed.
The appellant gave his reply.
Though the order had number determined the rights of the parties, this Court negatived the companytention and held that the order was final as in view of the fact that with these orders the petitions were disposed of finally and numberhing further remained to be done in respect of the petitions.
The companytroversies in the two proceedings were thus distinct though the parties were the same.
The Judgment of WANCHOO, C.J., SHELAT and VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
was delivered by SHELAT, J. BACHAWAT, J. on behalf of MITTER, J. and himself delivered a separate Opinion.
L. Sanghi and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
P.C. and the appellant filed his reply.
N. Keswani, for the appellant.
he applicant filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge under s. 476B of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order filing the companyplaint.
26 of 1963 in the companyrt of the Judicial Magistrate, Baroda, in respect of charges under ss.
In a revision against that order, the High Court held that the Sessions Judge was number right and setting aside his order remanded the matter to him to decide it on merits.
The Sessions Judge held that the order was bad as s. 476 under which the companyplaint was filed stood impliedly repealed by s. 479A and set aside the order filing the companyplaint.
Shelat, J. The appellant, a practising advocate, was engaged by Rama Shamal and Raiji Shamal two of the accused in Crimi nal Case No.
The order was held, number to be final because it did number determine the latter companytroversy viz.,
On January 25, 1963, bail bonds were furnished by a person calling himself Udesing Abhesing.
On the strength of his identification the Magistrate accepted the bonds and released the two accused on bail.
The aforesaid discussion leads to the companyclusion that when the Magistrate ordered the filing of the companyplaint against the appelant, the parties to that companytroversy were the State and the applicant and the companytroversy between them was whether the appellant had companymitted offence charged against him in that companyplaint.
Thereafter, one of them absented himself from the Court on three occasions and the Magistrate issued a numberice on the said surety.
The High Court on an application for certificate held that its order was number final as the real companytroversy between the parties i.e. the State and the applicant, was whether the companyplaint was justified.
The appellant identified that person as Udesing Abhesing and as personally known to him.
