Madras High Court
Kannambath Imbichi Nair And Anr. vs Manathanath Ramar Nair And Anr. on 16 August, 1905
Equivalent citations: (1906)ILR 29MAD122
ORDER Sankaran Nair, J.
1. An application was made for sanction to prosecute the petitioners under Sections 463, 471 and 493, Indian Penal Code, and the Munsif granted sanction for prosecution as prayed for. There was no application before him for sanction to prosecute the petitioners for an offence under Section 192, Indian Penal Code, though he discusses the applicability of that section to the facts before him.
2. The District Judge in appeal has revoked the sanction granted by the District Munsif, but has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioners for an offence under Section 192, Indian Penal Code.
3. I am of opinion that in this case an appeal lies to this Court against the order of the District Judge under Clauses (6) and (7) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Mr. Barton applies that this petition may be treated as an appeal. I am inclined to allow the request, and as appeals have to be heard by a Bench of two Judges I direct this to be posted accordingly.
5. The case came on for hearing before a Bench constituted as above. Their Lordships delivered the following.
Case Note:
Appeal against order of District Court granting sanction - Criminal Procedure Code, Act V of 1898, Section 195, Clauses 6, 7--Power of High Court on such appeal.
JUDGMENT
1. For reasons stated in the order dated the 31st, July 1905, Mr. Barton's application to revoke the order of the District Judge was treated as an appeal.
2. We have now heard Mr. Barton and are unable to agree with his contention that we have only to deal with the objection against the order sanctioning prosecution under Section 192, Indian Penal Code. Under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 105, the Appellate Court has power to revoke any sanction granted by the Court against whoso order the appeal is made, as also to grant sanction refused by it. The District Judge apparently came to the conclusion that the signature to the receipt at well as the thumb marks therein were really fixed by the first defendant and probably this is correct. There can, however, be no doubt that the payment of Rs. 150 and odd recited in the receipt is untrue. The question as to this payment was the crucial one, and as the petitioners stated on affirmation, positively, that they saw the payment made, we think the offence for which sanction for prosecution should be given is that of giving false evidence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. The order of the District Judge will he modified accordingly.