Skip to content


Ganesh Datt Tewari Vs. Jittan Tamboli - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in49Ind.Cas.771
AppellantGanesh Datt Tewari
RespondentJittan Tamboli
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 195, clauses 6, 7(a) - sanction to prosecute--application to subordinate judge, dismissal of--appeal, whether lies to district judge or sigh court. - 1. this is a first appeal from an order passed by the subordinate judge of benares refusing to sanction the prosecution of one jittan tamboli for the offence of forgery, or some cognate offence, committal in connection with a suit which was tried by the munsif of benares. an appeal against the decision of the munsif in the said suit came before the subordinate judge of benares for decision. the subordinate judge disposed of the appeal and a second appeal against his decree is nosy pending in this court, in the meantime the present appellant went to the subordinate judge with an application for sanction to prosecute under section 195 of the criminal procedure code. the subordinate judge rejected that application. a further application to grant the sanction which the subordinate judge had.....
Judgment:

1. This is a first appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Benares refusing to sanction the prosecution of one Jittan Tamboli for the offence of forgery, or some cognate offence, committal in connection with a suit which was tried by the Munsif of Benares. An appeal against the decision of the Munsif in the said suit came before the Subordinate Judge of Benares for decision. The Subordinate Judge disposed of the appeal and a second appeal against his decree is nosy pending in this Court, In the meantime the present appellant went to the Subordinate Judge with an application for sanction to prosecute under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Subordinate Judge rejected that application. A further application to grant the sanction which the Subordinate Judge had refused, whether such application be described as an appeal from the order refusing sanction or as a fresh application, undoubtedly lay under Section 195, Clause (6), of the Criminal Procedure Code to any authority to which the Court of the Subordinate Judge was subordinate, as that expression is defined in Sub-clause (7) of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The present appellant assumed that the proper Court to apply to was the Court of the District Judge, but the learned District Judge has refused to interfere, holding that application ought to be made to this Court, in view of the fact that a second appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge lay to this Court and is actually pending. On the wording of Section 195, Clause 7 (a), of the Criminal Procedure Code it would seem that the application (or appeal) was rightly made to the Court of the District Judge of Benares and that the learned District Judge was wrong in not entertaining that application and disposing of it on its merits. As the matter now stands, however, we think that there are sufficient reasons why sanction should not be granted to the present appellant so long as the second appeal referred to is pending in this Court. When that appeal has been disposed of, it would be open to the present appellant to make a fresh application for sanction, either directly to this Court, or to the Court of the District Judge of Benares, if be finds sufficient reason for doing so. For the present we are of opinion that it would not be in the interests of justice to arm this appellant with a sanction to prosecute, so long as the second appeal in the original suit remains pending. We dismiss this application, or appeal, on this ground alone, and we make no order as to the costs of the same.


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