Skip to content


Kannambath Imbichi Nair and anr. Vs. Manathanath Ramar Nair and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR29Mad122
AppellantKannambath Imbichi Nair and anr.
RespondentManathanath Ramar Nair and anr.
Excerpt:
appeal against order of district court granting sanction - criminal procedure code, act v of 1898, section 195, clauses 6, 7--power of high court on such appeal. - - the district judge apparently came to the conclusion that the signature to the receipt at well as the thumb marks therein were really fixed by the first defendant and probably this is correct......to deal with the objection against the order sanctioning prosecution under section 192, indian penal code. under the provisions of the criminal procedure code, section 105, the appellate court has power to revoke any sanction granted by the court against whoso order the appeal is made, as also to grant sanction refused by it. the district judge apparently came to the conclusion that the signature to the receipt at well as the thumb marks therein were really fixed by the first defendant and probably this is correct. there can, however, be no doubt that the payment of rs. 150 and odd recited in the receipt is untrue. the question as to this payment was the crucial one, and as the petitioners stated on affirmation, positively, that they saw the payment made, we think the offence for.....
Judgment:

1. For reasons stated in the order dated the 31st, July 1905, Mr. Barton's application to revoke the order of the District Judge was treated as an appeal.

2. We have now heard Mr. Barton and are unable to agree with his contention that we have only to deal with the objection against the order sanctioning prosecution under Section 192, Indian Penal Code. Under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 105, the Appellate Court has power to revoke any sanction granted by the Court against whoso order the appeal is made, as also to grant sanction refused by it. The District Judge apparently came to the conclusion that the signature to the receipt at well as the thumb marks therein were really fixed by the first defendant and probably this is correct. There can, however, be no doubt that the payment of Rs. 150 and odd recited in the receipt is untrue. The question as to this payment was the crucial one, and as the petitioners stated on affirmation, positively, that they saw the payment made, we think the offence for which sanction for prosecution should be given is that of giving false evidence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. The order of the District Judge will he modified accordingly.


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