High CourtsDivision Bench(1884) 08 CAL CK 0003

Abbilakh Singh vs Khub Lall

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 19 August 1884 · Citation: (1884) ILR (Cal) 1100

HON’BLE JUDGES
Norris, J · Field, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 315 words

Field, J.—This is an application under para. 4, Clause (c), Section 195, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the revocation of a sanction given for the prosecution of the petitioner, dated 16th February 1884. The sanction is in the following words:--"Sanction to prosecute is awarded." We think that this sanction must be revoked on two grounds: The second paragraph of Clause (c), Section 195, provides that the sanction "shall, so far as practicable, specify the Court or other place in which, and the occasion on which, the offence was committed." The sanction which forms the subject of this application does not comply with these provisions of the law.

2.

The second ground upon which we think this sanction ought to be revoked is this: The sanction was not given immediately upon the termination of the proceedings in which the question of the genuineness of the istifa or notice of relinquishment was raised. It was given when those proceedings had terminated, and by an order of a subsequent date, which virtually re-opened the matter. We think that when a sanction is applied for under circumstances of this nature, that is, after the termination of the proceedings in the course of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the person against whom the sanction is applied for ought to have notice and have an opportunity of being heard, and that the proceedings ought not to be re-opened in this manner to his prejudice without giving him an opportunity of appearing and being heard. Under these circumstances, we revoke the sanction so far as regards the charge u/s 211. We understand that in this same record there is a charge against the petitioner u/s 500 of the Penal Code. That is an offence for the prosecution of which a sanction is not required, and, therefore, so far as regards that offence, we make no order.