Skip to content


Shiamlal Vs. Chunni Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.220a
AppellantShiamlal
RespondentChunni Lal
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1893) sections 195 and 476 - offence committed before munsiff--prosecution ordered by district judge--jurisdiction. - .....prosecution of shiam lal under section 193, i.p.c. then an application in revision was made to the learned district judge, who declined to grant sanction under section 195 of the criminal procedure code, but purporting to act under section 476 of that code, he himself ordered the prosecution of shiam lal under section 193. shiam lal has made this application in revision and his learned counsel contends that the learned district judge had no jurisdiction to direct the prosecution of shiam lal under section 476 as that section could apply only if the offence had been committed in that court or brought under its notice in the course of a judicial proceeding. the offence was neither committed before the learned district judge nor was brought under his notice in the course of a judicial.....
Judgment:

Karamat Husain, J.

An application was made to the learned Munsif to sanction the prosecution of Shiam Lal, applicant. The learned Munsif refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of Shiam Lal under Section 193, I.P.C. Then an application in revision was made to the learned District Judge, who declined to grant sanction under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but purporting to act under Section 476 of that Code, he himself ordered the prosecution of Shiam Lal under Section 193. Shiam Lal has made this application in revision and his learned Counsel contends that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to direct the prosecution of Shiam Lal under Section 476 as that section could apply only if the offence had been committed in that Court or brought under its notice in the course of a judicial proceeding. The offence was neither committed before the learned District Judge nor was brought under his notice in the course of a judicial proceeding. In support of this contention the learned Counsel relies upon In re Mathura Das 16 A. 80 in which, under circumstances similar to those of the present case, it was held that the Judge's order was made without jurisdiction. Following that ruling, I hold that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to act under Section 476 and set aside his order.


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