Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.52 seconds)Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Baptist De Souza on 16 June, 1939
8. Upon the question as to the sufficiency of the sanction the High Court noticed two previous decisions of such Court, Emperor v. D'Souza (1946) 48 Bom.
Emperor vs Mahendra Balkrishna Shah on 16 July, 1946
L.R. 754 and Emperor v. Mahendra Balkrishna Shah (1946) 50 Bom. L.R. 377, by which it had been held that the burden of proving that the requisite sanction had been obtained rested on the prosecution, and that such burden involved proof that the sanctioning authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based, facts which might appear on the face of the sanction, or might be proved by extraneous evidence. The Court accepted this view of the law, but held that in the case of the appellant it had been proved that the facts on which the prosecution was proposed to be based had been before the sanctioning authority when the sanction was given. The view of the Court upon this question appears from the following passage in the judgment of the Court:
1