1. We are not satisfied that sanction ought to have been given in this case. The prosecution does not allege that there was no dacoity. In order to sustain a conviction it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the Inspector, when he said that he recognised the dacoit by the flash of his revolver, not only spoke falsely 'but knew that he was speaking falsely. There is no evidence in the case to show that it is physically impossible, to recognize a man by the flash of a revolver. The cases referred to in Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence, 5th Edition, page 580, rather lead to the conclusion that identification by means of the flash, of a gun is not impossible. It is suggested by the Public Prosecutor that a revolver gives a smaller flash than a gun. That may be. It is a question depending on the relative quantity and quality of the powder used, and perhaps other circumstances also. We do not, however, think that it can be held with any certainty that identification by the flash of a revolver is impossible, still less that the Inspector did not honestly think that he was able to thus identify the man.
2. No doubt, the Inspector when reporting the dacoity and his having fired at a man did not say that he could identify the man if he should see him, and it was not until after the accused was found with what was then supposed to be a gun shot wound in the leg that the Inspector identified him as the man he fired at. But we do not think that these facts are sufficient to show that the Inspector was intentionably giving false evidence. Exact identification will no doubt be difficult, but the Inspector may well have believed that the accused was the man he had seen by the flash of his revolver. We accordingly revoke the sanction for his prosecution.