Chhadammi Lal Vs. Kanhai Lal and anr. - Court Judgment
|Judge||Aikman and; Karmat Husain, JJ.|
|Respondent||Kanhai Lal and anr.|
criminal procedure code, section 195 - sanction to prosecuts--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 schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board...........to prosecute the present applicants for an offence punishable under section 193, indian penal code. sanction was refused by the munsif. chhadammi lal then applied to the learned district judge, who granted the sanction. the applicants have presented a petition which is headed as a 'criminal revision' against the order of the district judge. it may be taken as decided by the full bench in salig ram v. ramji lal (1906) i.l.r. 28 all. 554 that this court has no revisional powers on the criminal side to interfere with an order passed by a civil court granting sanction under the provisions of section 195, code of criminal procedure. we are bound by that ruling, and must therefore hold that we have no power of interference in revision. but it is contended that apart from the revisional.....
Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.
1. One Chhadammi Lal applied to the Munsif for sanction to prosecute the present applicants for an offence punishable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. Sanction was refused by the Munsif. Chhadammi Lal then applied to the learned District Judge, who granted the sanction. The applicants have presented a petition which is headed as a 'Criminal Revision' against the order of the District Judge. It may be taken as decided by the Full Bench in Salig Ram v. Ramji Lal (1906) I.L.R. 28 All. 554 that this Court has no revisional powers on the criminal side to interfere with an order passed by a Civil Court granting sanction under the provisions of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure. We are bound by that ruling, and must therefore hold that we have no power of interference in revision. But it is contended that apart from the revisional powers conferred on this Court by Chapter XXXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we have power under Section 195, Clause (6) of that Code to revoke the sanction which the learned District Judge has given. In the case of Muthuswami Mudali v. Veeni Chetti (1907) I.L.R. 30 Mad. 382. Mr. Justice Wallis expressed his opinion that it was neVer intended by Section 195 that there should be more than one appeal in a case like the present. In the case of King Emperor v. Serh Mal Weekly Notes 1908 p. 102 we expressed our concurrence with what was said by Wallis, J., in the case referred to. We see no reason to alter our opinion. We therefore hold that we have no power of interference in this case, and reject the application.