Skip to content


Ram Sahai and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All356; 50Ind.Cas.848
AppellantRam Sahai and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 195, 476 - sanction to prosecute--proceedings under section 476--application for sanction by private person--procedure. - - it is far better in my opinion that the magistrate should take action under section 476 and decide for himself whether or not it was a fit case in which to lay his complaint......for sanction to prosecute the other side for offences under sections 211 and 193, on which the magistrate dropped his proceedings under section 476, because, as he says, under the circumstances it was useless to make government responsible for conducting the case against these persons and incur heavy expenditure. in substitution of the proceedings which he had initiated, the magistrate granted rup ram sanction to prosecute, thereby placing in his hands an effective weapon as against those who had charged him with the original offence. i have examined the record. to my mind it is plain that the magistrate's action is unsuitable to the circumstances of the case. the grounds that he has given for dropping proceedings under section 476 are childish in the extreme. it is not usually.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows: A criminal complaint was preferred against certain persons in which the latter were charged with an offence under Section 453 of the Penal Code. The Court acquitted the accused, came to the conclusion that the charge was a false one and proceeded to take action under Section 476 of the Code, apparently with the approval of the Magistrate. Rup Ram, who was one of the accused, applied for sanction to prosecute the other side for offences under sections 211 and 193, on which the Magistrate dropped his proceedings under Section 476, because, as he says, under the circumstances it was useless to make Government responsible for conducting the case against these persons and incur heavy expenditure. In substitution of the proceedings which he had initiated, the Magistrate granted Rup Ram sanction to prosecute, thereby placing in his hands an effective weapon as against those who had charged him with the original offence. I have examined the record. To my mind it is plain that the Magistrate's action is unsuitable to the circumstances of the case. The grounds that he has given for dropping proceedings under Section 476 are childish in the extreme. It is not usually advisable to grant sanction to a private person. It is far better in my opinion that the Magistrate should take action under Section 476 and decide for himself whether or not it was a fit case in which to lay his complaint. Government is not so poverty-stricken that it cannot bear the expense of prosecuting these persons, if necessary. The District Magistrate on appeal held that there was no sufficient reason to interfere with the order granting sanction. In my opinion there is every reason for interference. I set aside the sanction granted by the original Court. I direct the record to be returned to that Court for it to take up proceedings under Section 476 at the stage at which it dropped them, if it shall think fit to do so. The prosecution of the present appellants must not be left in the hands of Rup Ram or any other private person.


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