Skip to content


Joydeo Singh Vs. Harihar Pershad Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR11Cal577
AppellantJoydeo Singh
RespondentHarihar Pershad Singh
Excerpt:
sanction - fresh sanction granted more than six months after expiry of prior sanction--grounds upon which such fresh sanction should not be granted--criminal procedure code, act x of 1882, section 195. - .....than six months old. thereupon, on the 20th august, another application was made for obtaining a fresh sanction, which was given on the 13th april 1885.3. this rule was obtained by the petitioner upon the plaintiff to show cause why the order of the munsif, dated 13th april 1885, should not be set aside.4. it is contended before us that under section 195 of the criminal procedure code, it was not competent to the munsif to give a fresh sanction for the prosecution. it seems to me to be unnecessary to express any opinion upon this point, 'because, assuming that the munsif had power to grant the fresh sanction, he should not have granted it unless some explanation was given for the omission to commence the proceeding within six months. the order of the 13th april 1885 has been read to.....
Judgment:

Mitter, J.

1. The petitioner before us was defendant in a civil suit. The suit was decreed by the Munsif on the 22nd August 1882, and at the end of the judgment a sanction was given for the prosecution of the petitioner for forgery and for giving false evidence. There was an appeal preferred against the Munsif's decree, and that appeal was disposed of against the petitioner on the 9th August 1883. Then, on the 23rd July 1884, the plaintiff in the civil suit commenced the criminal proceeding for which he had obtained the sanction on the 22nd August 1882.

2. While this proceeding was pending, it was discovered that the sanction upon which the prosecution relied was more than six months old. Thereupon, on the 20th August, another application was made for obtaining a fresh sanction, which was given on the 13th April 1885.

3. This rule was obtained by the petitioner upon the plaintiff to show cause why the order of the Munsif, dated 13th April 1885, should not be set aside.

4. It is contended before us that under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was not competent to the Munsif to give a fresh sanction for the prosecution. It seems to me to be unnecessary to express any opinion upon this point, 'because, assuming that the Munsif had power to grant the fresh sanction, he should not have granted it unless some explanation was given for the omission to commence the proceeding within six months. The order of the 13th April 1885 has been read to us. It discloses no special grounds for granting this fresh sanction. Neither does it appear from the record that any explanation was given by the opposite party to this rule as to why proceedings were not commenced at least within six months from the date when the decree of the Munsif was confirmed in appeal.

5. Under these circumstances I am of opinion that the Munsif did not exercise a sound discretion in granting the fresh sanction prayed for. We accordingly set aside the order of the Munsif of the 13th April 1885.


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