Skip to content


Mahant Kirpalban Vs. Musammat Ram Dei - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.260
AppellantMahant Kirpalban
RespondentMusammat Ram Dei
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 195 - sanction to prosecute--appeal pending against decree in the high court--one statement on oath, another not on oath--sanction should not he granted. - - in my opinion, both the pleas are well-founded.karamat husain, j.1. in the judicial proceedings before the learned subordinate judge of moradabad, certain statements were made by the applicant, who had made another statement in mutation proceedings which was not on oath. on the ground of discrepancy between the two statements an application was made to the learned subordinate judge to grant sanction to prosecute the applicant for perjury. the application was rejected by the learned subordinate judge. on appeal to the learned district judge the application was granted. the applicant has applied to this court in revision and two pleas are raised before me. the first is that the court below acted with material irregularity in granting sanction during the pendency of a regular appeal to this court from the decree made by the subordinate.....
Judgment:

Karamat Husain, J.

1. In the judicial proceedings before the learned Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, certain statements were made by the applicant, who had made another statement in mutation proceedings which was not on oath. On the ground of discrepancy between the two statements an application was made to the learned Subordinate Judge to grant sanction to prosecute the applicant for perjury. The application was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge. On appeal to the learned District Judge the application was granted. The applicant has applied to this Court in revision and two pleas are raised before me. The first is that the Court below acted with material irregularity in granting sanction during the pendency of a regular appeal to this Court from the decree made by the Subordinate Judge in the proceedings out of which the application for sanction to prosecute arose. The second is that the Court acted with material irregularity in granting sanction based on a discrepancy between the statement made before the Court of the Subordinate Judge and that recorded in the course of mutation proceedings which WAS not on oath and to which the attention of the witness was not called in the course of his examination before the Subordinate Judge. In my opinion, both the pleas are well-founded. It is highly undesirable that sanction should be granted while an appeal is pending to this Court and this ground is quite sufficient for setting aside the order of the lower appellate Court. I, therefore, set aside the order of the lower appellate Court granting sanction to prosecute the applicant.


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