Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Subbaraya Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad487
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentSubbaraya Pillai
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - act x of 1882, sections 195, 407, 476--application for sanction to prosecute--offence committed before second-class magistrate--court to which appeals ordinarily lie--application by letter for sanction to prosecute--district magistrate's order sanctioning prosecution and prescribing the court in which the prosecution should take place. - .....without a sanction.2. in the present case the sanction might have been given by the second-class magistrate or by some other court to which his court is subordinate, and for the purpose of section 195 that other court is denned to be the court to which appeals from the second-class magistrate ordinarily lie.3. under section 407, criminal procedure code, an appeal lies to the district magistrate, but, if the district magistrate has directed that all appeals from second and third-class magistrates in the kallakurichi taluk shall be heard by the deputy magistrate--and we understand this to be the case--it follows that all appeals from their decisions shall be presented to the deputy magistrate, and the deputy magistrate's court is the court to which the appeals ordinarily lie. had.....
Judgment:

1. Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, does not make any particular form of application for sanction necessary, nor does it enact that application shall be made by any particular person. The section merely provides that no Court shall take cognizance of certain offences without a sanction.

2. In the present case the sanction might have been given by the Second-class Magistrate or by some other Court to which his Court is subordinate, and for the purpose of Section 195 that other Court is denned to be the Court to which appeals from the Second-class Magistrate ordinarily lie.

3. Under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal lies to the District Magistrate, but, if the District Magistrate has directed that all appeals from Second and Third-class Magistrates in the Kallakurichi taluk shall be heard by the Deputy Magistrate--and we understand this to be the case--it follows that all appeals from their decisions shall be presented to the Deputy Magistrate, and the Deputy Magistrate's Court is the Court to which the appeals ordinarily lie. Had the sanction been granted by the Second-class Magistrate the appeal would, in the ordinary course of things, have been presented to the Deputy Magistrate as the Magistrate having jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. For this reason we consider that the view of the Sessions Judge was correct.

4. We may point out that the order of the District Magistrate was irregular on another ground. His order directs that the accused be prosecuted before the Head Assistant Magistrate. No such order could be passed under Section 195 which must be confined to a grant of sanction, as the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to act under Section 476, since the alleged offence was not brought to his notice in the course of a judicial proceeding. We must, therefore, decline to interfere and dismiss this petition.

5. Ordered accordingly.


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