Skip to content


Chadammi Vs. Lalta Prasad and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR34All602
AppellantChadammi
RespondentLalta Prasad and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, sections 195 and 476 - sanction to prosecute--sanction set aside by superior court and order for prosecution under section 476 substituted--jurisdiction. - .....sessions judge on revision revoked the sanction, but taking action under section 476 of the code of criminal procedure, directed the prosecution of the applicant and sent the record to the district magistrate with the request that the complaint be made over to a competent magistrate for disposal according to law. the applicant comes here in revision, and his learned counsel urges that the learned sessions judge had no jurisdiction to take action under section 476 of the code of criminal procedure. in support of this contention he relies upon the case in the matter of the petition of mathura das (1892) i.l.r., 16 all., 80. the case, no doubt, supports the contention. in that case a learned judge of this court was of opinion that when a matter is taken up in revision to a higher.....
Judgment:

Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.

1. In this case sanction for prosecution under Sections 193 and 211, Indian Penal Code, was granted by a Magistrate and the Assistant Sessions Judge on revision revoked the sanction, but taking action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed the prosecution of the applicant and sent the record to the District Magistrate with the request that the complaint be made over to a competent Magistrate for disposal according to law. The applicant comes here in revision, and his learned Counsel urges that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to take action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this contention he relies upon the case In the matter of the petition of Mathura Das (1892) I.L.R., 16 All., 80. The case, no doubt, supports the contention. In that case a learned Judge of this Court was of opinion that when a matter is taken up in revision to a higher court under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings in the higher court cannot be deemed to be judicial proceedings. The learned Judge who decided that case in the course of his judgment said:--'It -is evident that the offences were not committed in the court of the District Judge, so that he has no jurisdiction under Section 476, unless it can be held that they were brought under his notice in the course of a judicial proceeding. Even if an application under Section 195 can be held to be a judicial proceeding, I do not think it could be held without straining the language of the section that when an application is presented for sanction to prosecute for an offence, that offence is brought to the notice of the court in the course of a judicial proceeding, there being no other judicial proceeding before the court than the application for sanction. Taking this view of the case, I am of opinion that the District Judge had no power to take action under that section.' With due respect to the learned Judge, we are of opinion that when a case under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is taken up to a higher court in revision, the proceedings in the higher court relating to sanction are undoubtedly judicial proceedings. These proceedings, in no way, can be regarded as other than judicial proceedings. The function exercised by the higher court in up-holding the order of the court below or reversing it is beyond doubt a judicial act. Besides, it seems highly improbable that the higher court, when a case under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes before it in revision, should not have the power to rectify the mistake, if any, committed by the court below. There are many cases in which the sanction for prosecution obtained by an applicant from the court of first instance is not utilized for the benefit of the public. It is often used as the means of gaining some private object, and that being so, it is highly desirable that the higher court should take away that power from the hands of a private person and give it to the public authorities or institute the complaint itself. This being our view, we are of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to take action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the offence was brought to his notice in the course of a judicial proceeding. We, therefore, reject the application.


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