Skip to content


Ram NaraIn Vs. Harbans Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in71Ind.Cas.617
AppellantRam Narain
RespondentHarbans Singh
Cases ReferredBaran Barai v. Mata Prasad
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115 - criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 195(6)--sanction to prosecute refused by munsif but given by district judge--revision. - - 3. if these applications which are now before me are to be treated as applications in revision they are governed by the provisions of section 115 of the code of civil procedure and on that footing the learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to satisfy me that the court below has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. the facts in that case were precisely similar to those in the present case. the applications fail and are dismissed with costs to..........was made to the munsif for sanction to prosecute these three persons. the munsif refused sanction. an application was then made to the district judge under section 195(6) of the code of criminal procedure. the learned district judge has granted the sanction.3. if these applications which are now before me are to be treated as applications in revision they are governed by the provisions of section 115 of the code of civil procedure and on that footing the learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to satisfy me that the court below has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.4. independently of this, however, it has been contended.....
Judgment:

Lindsay, J.

1. These three applications are directed against an order of the District Judge of Allahabad granting sanction for the prosecution of the applicants, Ram Narain, Gopi Ram and Badri Prasad, under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings arose out of a civil suit for preemption in which Ram Narain was a defendant and in which the other two persons, Gopi Ram and Badri Prasad, appeared as witnesses.

2. Application was made to the Munsif for sanction to prosecute these three persons. The Munsif refused sanction. An application was then made to the District Judge under Section 195(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned District Judge has granted the sanction.

3. If these applications which are now before me are to be treated as applications in revision they are governed by the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on that footing the learned Counsel for the applicants has not been able to satisfy me that the Court below has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

4. Independently of this, however, it has been contended that the applicants have a light to come to this Court under the provisions of Section 195(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On this point there is the authority of a Bench ruling of this Court reported as Baran Barai v. Mata Prasad 25 Ind. Cas. 528 : 36 A. 469 : 12 A.L.J. 821 : 15 Cr.L.T. 616 that no such application will lie to this Court. The facts in that case were precisely similar to those in the present case. The applications fail and are dismissed with costs to the opposite party.


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