Abboo Chetty and Another vs Kuppusami Chetty

We cannot uphold the sanction given by the Magistrate. The Magistrate is mistaken in supposing that a sanction given u/s 195, Clause 3 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, is a mere formal sanction and that it is not necessary for him before granting sanction to consider the evidence and

decide as to whether there is a prima facie case and any reasonable chance of a conviction being obtained. In the present case, it is impossible to

hold '' that there is a pirma facie case. The only evidence of any importance which, as far as can be seen, would be available against the present

appellants of having abetted Chinniah Naidu in bringing a false charge of theft would be the statements of .Chinniah Naidu himself who it is shown

after application had been made for sanction to prosecute him turned round and pleaded in a letter that all he had done was at the instigation of the

present appellants. Since he wrote this letter although it is now almost four months after the date of the granting of sanction against him, no steps

have been taken to try Chinniah Naidu. Under these circumstances with this sanction hanging over his head, it is certain that no Magistrate could

attach any weight to any evidence that he might give. There is nothing to show that there is any other evidence available of any importance to prove

that the appellants instigated the preferring of a false charge by Chinniah Naidu. As a court of appeal we set aside the sanction granted against

Abboo Chetty and Raghavalu Chetty and as a court of revision the sanction to prosecute Mangadu Ellappa Chetty and Kuppusami Iyer.