Skip to content


Ganga Dei Vs. Sher Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR17All51
AppellantGanga Dei
RespondentSher Singh
Excerpt:
.....195 - sanction to prosecute--sanction in respect of an offence committed in the course of a civil suit of over rs. 5,000 in value--appeal. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in..........to hear it. that order was based upon the impression that, the amount in dispute in the civil suit being such that an appeal in the civil suit was outside his jurisdiction, the learned judge's court was not the court to which an appeal from the subordinate judge ordinarily lay within the meaning of section 195 of the code of criminal procedure. the learned judge is mistaken. the amount at issue in the civil suit is wholly irrelevant. his court was the ordinary court of appeal from the decision in criminal matters made by the subordinate judge. the sanction in question was a sanction for criminal prosecution. the district judge therefore was the proper tribunal to revoke or confirm such sanction. the order of the judge dismissing the appeal is quashed. let the case go back to.....
Judgment:

Blair, J.

1. This is an application to this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In a civil suit before a Subordinate Judge for a sum largely in excess of 5,000 rupees certain interrogatories were alleged to have been falsely answered, or not properly answered, or not answered at all within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Subordinate Judge who beard the suit granted sanction for the prosecution of the present applicant in terms which it is irrelevant here to discuss. Against that order the present applicant appealed to the District Judge. The learned District Judge rejected the appeal upon the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear it. That order was based upon the impression that, the amount in dispute in the civil suit being such that an appeal in the civil suit was outside his jurisdiction, the learned Judge's Court was not the Court to which an appeal from the Subordinate Judge ordinarily lay within the meaning of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judge is mistaken. The amount at issue in the civil suit is wholly irrelevant. His Court was the ordinary Court of appeal from the decision in criminal matters made by the Subordinate Judge. The sanction in question was a sanction for criminal prosecution. The District Judge therefore was the proper tribunal to revoke or confirm such sanction. The order of the Judge dismissing the appeal is quashed. Let the case go back to the District Judge to hear and dispose of the appeal according to law. For the guidance of the District Judge he is referred to the Indian Law Reports, 2 Bombay, p. 384 and I.L.R. 2 Bom. p. 481.


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