1. In this case there was a charge of wrongful confinement and extortion made by one Tayichi Pokkan against certain persons. The Second-class Magistrate held an inquiry, and, having arrived at the conclusion that the charge was false, recorded proceedings to the effect that 'the complainant should be prosecuted for false complaint and the individuals mentioned in the Police report (the present petitioners) should be prosecuted for abetment of the false complaint.' I take this to be a sanction and not an order directing the prosecution. It is urged, however, and it seems to be the case that, as against these petitioners, there is no sort of evidence beyond some loose statements recorded by the Police.
2. Before granting a sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Court is bound to satisfy itself that an offence has been committed. I do not see that it is bound to hold an inquiry as to all the persons who may be implicated in such offence. On the contrary, the section expressly provides that the sanction may be in general terms and need not name the accused person, or persons, at all. That being so, it would seem that the petitioners might have been included in the prosecution even if they were not named in the order of sanction. But however that may be, I see no reason to doubt that a Court, if once satisfied that an offence of this kind has been committed, is entitled to authorize an inquiry as to how far any person said to be implicated was concerned in the matter.
3. I reject these applications.