1. The short question which arises upon this Rule is whethera Provincial Small Cause Court is, under Sub-Clause (c) of Clause (7) ofSection 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to be deemed to be subordinate forthe purposes of that Section to the Court of the District Judge.

2. Our attention was drawn to three cases in which thisquestion was answered in the negative, the case of Ajodhia Parshad v. Ram Lal13 Ind. Cas. 284 [LQ/AllHC/1911/131] : 34 A. 197 : 9 A. L. J. 124 : 13 Cri. L. J. 44 decided by theAllahabad High Court and the cases of Ambica Tewari v. Emperor 34 Ind. Cas. 320 [LQ/PatHC/1916/68] : 1 P. L. J. 206 : 17 Cri. L. J. 208 and Sukhdeo Singh v. District Magistrateof Muzoffarpur 38 Ind Cas. 754 [LQ/PatHC/1916/206] : 2 P. L. J. 1 : 18 Cri. L. J. 370 decided bythe Patna High Court. The last two cases depend upon the first mentioned case,in which it was held that the words "Where no appeal lies" in Clause7 (c) refer to cases, in which no appeal lies, decided by a Court from whichappeals ordinarily lie to some other Court and not to Courts from which no appeallies in any case. There the original proceedings were in a Revenue Court, theCourt of an Assistant Collector, but in the course of his judgment, Chamier,J., incidentally observed (pages 201 and 202) Pages of 34 A.---Ed., The resultof this construction is possibly that the Legislature has made no provision inSection 195 for an appeal against an order of a Small Cause Court giving orrefusing sanction and it may be that the only Court which can interfere withsuch an order is the High Court. The result may not have beencontemplated...." In Ambicas case 34 Ind. Cas. 320 [LQ/PatHC/1916/68] : 1 P. L. J. 206 : 17Cri. L. J. 208 where the original proceedings were in a Small Cause Court,Chamier, C. J., adhered to this expression of opinion and the Court held thatthe District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or applicationunder Clause (6) of Section 195.

3. The construction so adopted is founded upon the fact thatSub-Clause (c) must be read, not as a separate clause, but along with theopening words of Clause (7), which runs: "For the purposes of this Sectionevery Court shall be deemed to be subordinate only to the Court to whichappeals from the former Court ordinarily lie," that is to say:---Whenthese words are read with Sub-Clause (c) undoubtedly a difficulty does arise.Nevertheless, where there are Presidency Towns, the accepted view seems to bethat a Presidency Small Cause Court is subordinate to the High Court within thelimits of whose original jurisdiction it is situate, Ramdin Bania v. Sew BakshSingh 6 Ind. Cas. 473 [LQ/CalHC/1910/216] : 37 C. 714 at p. 721 : 14 C. W. N. 806 : 11 Cri. L. J.357; Jamna Das v. Sabapathy Chetti 12 Ind. Cas. 521 [LQ/MadHC/1911/215] : 36 M. 138 : 10 M. L. T.278 : (1911) 2 M. W. N. 259 : 21 M. L. J. 1074 : 12 Cri. L. J. 545 and if thatbe so, it would appear to follow that a Provincial Small Cause Court issimilarly subordinate for the purposes of Section 195 to the Court of theDistrict Judge. This view, moreover, is in accordance with the prevailingpractice in this Province, where the jurisdiction of the District Judge in suchcases has never been doubted of Ram Prosad Malla v. Raghubar Malla 4 Ind. Cas.6 : 37 C. 13 : 13 C. W. N. 1038 : 10 Cri. L, J. 454. I am not prepared to saythat that practice ought now to be disturbed or that the language is incapableof a construction consistent therewith.

4. During the course of the argument it was pointed out thatunder Section 24 of the Provincial Small Courts Act certain appeals do lie tothe District Court. Though this provision may not be sufficient to make thelatter Court the Court to which appeals from a Small Cause Court ordinarilylie, it is not perhaps without a bearing on the construction of Section 195 (7)of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. In the view indicated this Rule must be made absolute.The application in question, which the learned District Judge, followingAmbicas case 34 Ind. Cas. 320 [LQ/PatHC/1916/68] : 1 P.L.J. 206 : 17 Cri. L.J. 208., has heldthat he had no jurisdiction to entertain, will be heard and determined by himas an application under Section 195 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Cede.

Rule made absolute.

.

Nibaran Chandra Chakravarty and Ors. vs. Akshoy Kumar Banerjee (07.05.1917 - CALHC)