Baini Parshad Vs. the State

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - .....ordersoni, j.1. the facts of this case as given by the sessions judge are that one suraj bhan was prosecuted on the complaint of one baini parshad. after protracted trial, suraj bhan was acquitted by mr. vohra, magistrate, 1st class, by his order dated 31-5-1951 who held that the accusations against suraj bhan were false and vexatious. while acquitting suraj bhan, the magistrate further ordered that baini parshad should be summoned to appear before him on 2-6-1951 to show cause why he should not pay compensation to suraj bhan under section 250, criminal p. c. in the meantime, this magistrate was transferred and he was succeeded by mr. multani who on the basis of the notice issued by his predecessor ordered baini parshad to pay a sum of rs. 50/- by way of compensation to 'suraj bhan by his order dated 21-9-1951. the sessions judge has recommended that this order be set aside, as it was passed by a magistrate having no jurisdiction in the matter. 2. section 250, criminal p. c., enacts that when the magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of the opinion that the accusation against them or any of them was false and either frivolous or vexatious, the magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one, or, if such person is not present direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid. the section goes on to say that the magistrate shall record and consider any cause which such complainant or informant may show, and if he is satisfied that the accusation was false and either frivolous or vexatious may, for reasons to be recorded, direct that compensation to such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees * * * as he may determine, be paid by such complainant.....