Skip to content


In Re: Muljibhai Hirabhai Patel - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal Application for Revision No. 191 of 1925
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Bom535; (1925)27BOMLR1063
AppellantIn Re: Muljibhai Hirabhai Patel
DispositionAppeal rejected
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1838), section 195 (1) (c) - ' court '-court in native state not meant.;the word 'court' in section 195 (1) (c) of the criminal procedure code does not include a court in a native state of india. - - the opening words of section 195, criminal procedure code, no court shall take cognizance,'clearly limit the meaning of the word 'court' to british indian courts to which alone the british indian legislature could direct the prohibition which follows in the section. the application must, in my opinion, fail......there is a difficulty in supposing that the legislature intended that complaints or sanctions should be made or issued by courts not within the territorial jurisdiction of the legislature but outside its control.madgavkar, j.2. i agree. the opening words of section 195, criminal procedure code, 'no court shall take cognizance,' clearly limit the meaning of the word 'court' to british indian courts to which alone the british indian legislature could direct the prohibition which follows in the section. it is, therefore, difficult to attach a wider meaning to the same word 'court' in the remaining clauses of section 195. moreover, section 1 limits the ambit of the code to british india, and no reason is shown for widening the meaning of the courts in british india to courts in native.....
Judgment:

Fawcett, J.

1. In this case it is said that sanction is necessary for the prosecution of the applicant under Section 195 (1) (c), Criminal Procedure Code. This, however, assumes that the word 'Court' in that clause includes a Court in a Native State such as Baroda State. As at present advised, we do not think that that word can possibly be HO construed, and we may refer to Chanmalapa v. Abdul Vahal : (1910)12BOMLR977 in support of this view. Obviously there is a difficulty in supposing that the legislature intended that complaints or sanctions should be made or issued by Courts not within the territorial jurisdiction of the legislature but outside its control.

Madgavkar, J.

2. I agree. The opening words of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, 'no Court shall take cognizance,' clearly limit the meaning of the word 'Court' to British Indian Courts to which alone the British Indian Legislature could direct the prohibition which follows in the section. It is, therefore, difficult to attach a wider meaning to the same word 'Court' in the remaining clauses of Section 195. Moreover, Section 1 limits the ambit of the Code to British India, and no reason is shown for widening the meaning of the Courts in British India to Courts in Native States, as is sought by the applicant. The application must, in my opinion, fail.


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