Skip to content


Abdul Majid Vs. Krishna Lal Nag - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1893)ILR20Cal724
AppellantAbdul Majid
RespondentKrishna Lal Nag
Excerpt:
penal code, sections 193, 199 - proceedings by district judge without jurisdiction--ultra vires--jurisdiction, sanction to prosecute granted in proceedings held without--bengal tenancy act, 1885, section 95--sanction to prosecution. - .....under sections 193 and 199, indian penal code, should not be set aside. it appears that the district judge appointed a common manager under section 95 of the bengal tenancy act, and that the applicant was called upon to deliver certain accounts and papers to the common manager so appointed. the manager reported that the applicant would not furnish him with these accounts and papers, and the district judge then instituted a miscellaneous proceeding in respect of this matter. in this proceeding the applicant made a certain statement and filed two affidavits, alleging that he had not the accounts and papers called for. it is held that this statement before the district judge and the allegations made in the affidavits were false, and upon these grounds the district judge has.....
Judgment:

Rampini, J.

1. This is a rule calling on the other side to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Noakhali sanctioning the prosecution of the applicant under Sections 193 and 199, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside. It appears that the District Judge appointed a common manager under Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that the applicant was called upon to deliver certain accounts and papers to the common manager so appointed. The manager reported that the applicant would not furnish him with these accounts and papers, and the District Judge then instituted a miscellaneous proceeding in respect of this matter. In this proceeding the applicant made a certain statement and filed two affidavits, alleging that he had not the accounts and papers called for. It is held that this statement before the District Judge and the allegations made in the affidavits were false, and upon these grounds the District Judge has sanctioned the prosecution of the applicant under Sections 193 and 199. Now, we find no provision in the Bengal Tenancy Act authorising a District Judge to make any such enquiry or to order the applicant to deliver up any such papers, and we further find no provision in that Act or any other law authorising the District Judge to examine the applicant on oath in such proceedings. We do not think, therefore, that the applicant can be said to have been legally bound by oath when he was examined before the District Judge. Therefore the facts alleged do not disclose that he committed any offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, we cannot find any provision of the law, or any rules having the force of law, permitting the use of affidavits in such proceedings or authorising the administration of an oath to persons who profess to file affidavits in such proceedings. Therefore we do not think that the facts show the commission of any offence by the applicant under Section 199, Indian Penal Code. We accordingly think there are no grounds why the applicant should be prosecuted under either of these sections. We therefore set aside the order of the District Judge sanctioning the present prosecution, and direct that the proceedings be quashed and the rule made absolute.


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