Pravinsinh Jhala vs State Of Gujarat on 5 May, 2022
"16. The third contention really is that the Court can hold that
sanction was necessary if the appellant could prima facie show that
his action which is complained of was in connection with the
performance of his duties under ss.127 and 128 of the Code. Assuming
that this is the position in law, it does not appear from the record
which consists of the orders of the Sessions judge and the High Court
that the evidence in this case prima facie establishes that the
appellant's contention that his acts complained of were such for which
he could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the Government. In
Page 37 of 57
Downloaded on : Thu May 05 21:11:03 IST 2022
R/CR.MA/1799/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2022
this case the High Court has definitely said that the Sessions judge did
not arrive at any such conclusion and had made the reference on a
mere acceptance of the accused's version, for which there was no
justification. It is contended for the appellant that the mere fact that
some of the persons alleged to have formed part of the unlawful
assembly were prosecuted by the State and have also been committed
by the Magistrate to the Sessions Court for trial establishes prima
facie that the accused's contention about the necessity for sanction
under s. 132 of the Code. is correct. The commitment of the other
accused is on the basis of evidence in that case and cannot be legally
taken into consideration to decide the question raised in this case. The
question is to be decided on the evidence in this case and not on the
basis of evidence and inferences drawn in the other case. The third
contention, therefore, has no force.