Skip to content


Girish Chandra Ray Vs. Sarat Chandra Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Cal692,(1915)ILR42Cal667,30Ind.Cas.743
AppellantGirish Chandra Ray
RespondentSarat Chandra Singh
Cases ReferredMohesh Chandra Saha v. Emperor
Excerpt:
sanction for prosecution - offences committed in the court of a deputy magistrate--transfer of same from the sub-division--successor in office--application for sanction to another deputy magistrate, subsequently posted tit the sub-division--power of latter to grant sanction--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898). section 195. - .....to the district. magistrate with a request that, he should state whether and in what sense babu khirode lal mukherjee was the successor in office or babu harendra kumar ghose. a long letter was received by this court from the magistrate giving us all information tending to show that babu khirode lal mukherjee was the successor in office of babu harendra kumar ghose. then we issued the present rule, on the 10th of june, on the district magistrate and on the opposite part, to show cause why the proceedings preliminary to the granting of sanction should not he quashed on the ground that babu khirode lal mukherjee was not the successor in office of babu harendra kumar ghose.2. now, the whole matter has been argued before us. the ease stands thus. there was a case under section 107 of.....
Judgment:

Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.

1. The petitioners applied to this Court for a Rule to quash the proceedings now pending against them and, on their application, we ordered, on the 18th of May last, that it copy of the petition should be forwarded to the District. Magistrate with a request that, he should state whether and in what sense Babu Khirode Lal Mukherjee was the successor in office or Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose. A long letter was received by this Court from the Magistrate giving us all information tending to show that Babu Khirode Lal Mukherjee was the successor in office of Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose. Then we issued the present Rule, on the 10th of June, on the District Magistrate and on the opposite part, to show cause why the proceedings preliminary to the granting of sanction should not he quashed on the ground that Babu Khirode Lal Mukherjee was not the successor in office of Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose.

2. Now, the whole matter has been argued before us. The ease stands thus. There was a case under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which a certain document, namely, a pottah was used by the petitioners; and the present proceedings are to determine whether sanction should or should not be given for the prosecution of the petitioners for their use of that pottah, which is alleged to be a forged document, as a genuine document, in the said case. Now, that case was disposed of by Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose. The application for sanction was put in before Babu Khirode Lal Mukherjee. The question is whether Babu Khirode Lal Mukherjee is the successor-in-office of Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose or not. On behalf of the opposite party a lengthy argument has been placed before us in order to show that Babu Khirode Lal Mukherjee is the successor-in-office of Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose. We are however, of opinion that in the present case Babu Khirode Lai Mukherjee can not be said to be the representative-in-office of Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose. In the case of Mohesh Chandra Saha v. Emperor (1906) I. L. R. 35 Calc 457, 460, it has been held that where there are many Deputy Magistrates, and one of them is transferred, the Deputy Magistrate who conies to fill the gap is not the successor in office of the Deputy Magistrate who has been transferred. Under the circumstances we hold that Babu Khirode Lal Mukherjee is not the proper officer to grant sanction for the prosecution of the petitioners in respect of their use of the document in the proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code before Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose.

3. Now, the present proceedings arc under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (7) of that section, the proper Court to give sanction is either the Court where the offence is said to have been committed or the Court to which such Court is subordinate. Sub-section (7) of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly lays down that 'for the purpose of that section every Court shall be deemed to be subordinate only to the Court to which appeals from the former Court ordinarily lie.' The proceedings in the course of which the offence is said to have been committed were before Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose. It is not for us to do(sic)more than point out the law on the subject, and it is for the parties, if they are so advised, to act under the subsections and clauses to which we have referred. The rule is, therefore, made absolute and the proceedings quashed.


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