Skip to content


Province of Assam Vs. Mahendra Chandra De - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati
Decided On
Judge
AppellantProvince of Assam
RespondentMahendra Chandra De
Excerpt:
- - a police officer submitted a report against him to the effect that he bad demanded a bribe of rs......submitted a report against him to the effect that he bad demanded a bribe of rs. 50 from one sudhir pandit for arranging for a wagon for the said sudhir pandit. on this report, process was issued against the accused and e was placed on his trial before a magistrate of the first class at nowgong. the learned magistrate recorded evidence and then delivered a judgment in which heheld first—that under the provisions of section 6, prevention of corruption act 1947, the court was not entitled to take cognisance of the offence without sanction and that no sanction had been accorded to the prosecution and therefore, the magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. but he proceeded to hold from the facts and circumstances that the prosecution case had not been.....
Judgment:

1. This purports to be an appeal under the provisions of Section 417, Criminal P. 0., 'The material facts briefly are as follows: The accused Mahendra Chandra De is the station master of Haibargaon Railway station of the Assam Railway. A police officer submitted a report against him to the effect that he bad demanded a bribe of Rs. 50 from one Sudhir Pandit for arranging for a wagon for the said Sudhir Pandit. On this report, process was issued against the accused and e was placed on his trial before a Magistrate of the First Class at Nowgong. The learned Magistrate recorded evidence and then delivered a judgment in which heheld first—that under the provisions of Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, the Court was not entitled to take cognisance of the offence without sanction and that no sanction had been accorded to the prosecution and therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. But he proceeded to hold from the facts and circumstances that the prosecution case had not been made out; and be ordered that the, accused be acquitted be under Section 258, Criminal P. C.

2. The Local Government has moved this Court.

3. Under Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, it is clear that the sanction of some authority was necessary before the Court could take cognizance of the offence, and it is conceded that no such sanction was accorded in the present case. It seema to us clear, therefore, that under Section 530 (p), Criminal P. C, the proceedings before Magistrate 'were 'void' and the order of acquittal a nullity.

4. In this view, it was unnecessary on the of the Crown to move this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //