Skip to content


Nagendra Nath Srimoney Vs. Jogendra Nath Srimoney and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.491
AppellantNagendra Nath Srimoney
RespondentJogendra Nath Srimoney and ors.
Cases ReferredFink v. The Corporation of Calcutta
Excerpt:
receiver - sanction of court--prosecution of receiver for ordinary criminal offence. - .....30 c. 721 : 1 c.w.n. 706 where the receiver was prosecuted as owner and occupier of certain premises held as in the possession of the court, and the offence against him was under the calcutta municipal act that the premises were in a state dangerous or unfit for human habitation. in that case, it was rightly held that the receiver was not criminally responsible and the court itself was in possession of the premises in respect of which the prosecution was instituted. in another case mentioned by mr. ghosh, an advocate of this court was prosecuted under section 145, criminal procedure code, and prinsep and handley, jj., held that the prosecution did not lie without sanction. there the evidence was that the receiver was in possession of immoveable property in respect of which the.....
Judgment:

Fletcher, J.

1. All that I am prepared to say is that on the petition coming on before me, it appears to me no sanction, is necessary to proceed against a Receiver appointed by the Court for a breach of the ordinary Criminal law of the country. The cases in which the sanction of Court has been held necessary are that class of cases, such as that reported as Fink v. The Corporation of Calcutta 30 C. 721 : 1 C.W.N. 706 where the Receiver was prosecuted as owner and occupier of certain premises held as in the possession of the Court, and the offence against him was under the Calcutta Municipal Act that the premises were in a state dangerous or unfit for human habitation. In that case, it was rightly held that the Receiver was not criminally responsible and the Court itself was in possession of the premises in respect of which the prosecution was instituted. In another case mentioned by Mr. Ghosh, an Advocate of this Court was prosecuted under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and Prinsep and Handley, JJ., held that the prosecution did not lie without sanction. There the evidence was that the Receiver was in possession of immoveable property in respect of which the prosecution was instituted and that in fact he was in such possession in obedience to the order of the Court. But that it is necessary to obtain the sanction of this Court or of any other Civil Court for the prosecution of a person, who happens to be a Receiver appointed by the Court, in respect of any criminal act committed during his tenure of such office, I do not agree. I make no order on this petition.


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