Skip to content


Kanhai Lal and anr. Vs. Chadami Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.5
AppellantKanhai Lal and anr.
RespondentChadami Lal
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 195(6) and 439 - sanction to prosecute granted by district judge in appeal--revisional power of high court to interfere on criminal side--second appeal against order granting or refusing sanction in appeal. - - 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......to prosecute the present applicants for an offence punishable under section 198, indian penal code. sanction was refused by the munsif. chadami lal then applied to the learned district judge, who granted the sanction. the applicants have presented a petition which is headed as criminal revision against the order of the district judge. it may be taken as decided by the pull bench in salig ram v. ramji lal 28 a. 554, (f.r.); 3 cr. l.j. 400, 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 fey that ruling and must therefore hold that we have no power of interference in revision. but it is contended that apart from the revisional.....
Judgment:

Aikman, J.

1. One Chadami Lal applied to the Munsif for sanction to prosecute the present applicants for an offence punishable under Section 198, Indian Penal Code. Sanction was refused by the Munsif. Chadami Lal then applied to the learned District Judge, who granted the sanction. The applicants have presented a petition which is headed as criminal revision against the order of the District Judge. It may be taken as decided by the Pull Bench in Salig Ram v. Ramji Lal 28 A. 554, (F.R.); 3 Cr. L.J. 400, 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 fey 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, 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 30 M. 382; 6 Cr. L.J. 102, 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 28 A.W.N. 102; 7 Cr. L.J. 389, 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.


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