Skip to content


ismal Rowther and ors. Vs. Shunmugavelu Nadan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR29Mad149
Appellantismal Rowther and ors.
RespondentShunmugavelu Nadan
Cases ReferredRaj Chunder Mozumdar v. Gour Chunder Moumdar I.L.R. Calc.
Excerpt:
.....nullifies the provision that want of sanction is merely an irregularity which would not justify the reversal of the decision in a case prosecuted without sanction unless such want of sanction has occasioned a failure of justice. in this view there is nothing to show that the want of sanction caused any prejudice to the accused or occasioned any failure of justice......effect given to it as qualifying the general provisions in the earlier section. in this view there is nothing to show that the want of sanction caused any prejudice to the accused or occasioned any failure of justice. and no other ground has been shown for interfering with the decision of the lower courts.4. we dismiss the petition.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. One of the offences for which the petitioners have been convicted is punishable under Section 188, Indian Penal Code.

2. No sanction from the Police officers obstructed was produced in the course of the prosecution but no objection on this ground was taken on behalf of the petitioners at the trial. Mr. Norton has called our attention to Raj Chunder Mozumdar v. Gour Chunder Moumdar I.L.R. Calc. 176 in support of his contention that the want of sanation was fatal to the prosecution of the prisoners on the charge in respect of the offence referred to. We are unable to agree with the view there taken by the learned Judges as to the construction of Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code of 1832, which so far as the question of want of sanotion is concerned is identical with Section 537 of the present Code (Act V of 1893). Their construction virtually nullifies the provision that want of sanction is merely an irregularity which would not justify the reversal of the decision in a case prosecuted without sanction unless such want of sanction has occasioned a failure of justice. No doubt Section 537 begins with the words 'subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained,' etc., but those words must be taken together with what follows and not read so as to give no meaning to the subsequent clause relating to the want of sanction.

3. Section 195, provides generally for cases in which sanction is necessary, while Section 537(b) provides for oases of want of or irregularity in the matter of sanction in particular oases. The latter as providing for a special case must have effect given to it as qualifying the general provisions in the earlier section. In this view there is nothing to show that the want of sanction caused any prejudice to the accused or occasioned any failure of justice. And no other ground has been shown for interfering with the decision of the lower Courts.

4. We dismiss the petition.


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