AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We consider that this appeal lies u/s 15 of the Letters Patent, as it is impossible to hold that an order passed u/s 195 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with a view to a subsequent prosecution and trial for an offence is a sentence or order passed ""in a criminal trial."" We, therefore,
proceed to hear the appeal.
On the merits we consider that the sanction granted ""by the Sessions Judge ought to be revoked, as there is no evidence to prove the falsity of
the appellant''s statements except that of Srinivasaraghavachari, whose evidence was treated as untrustworthy by the Bench which heard the
Referred Trial No. 72 of 1901, the members of which are also on this Bench. The Sessions Judge is in error in supposing that the evidence of the
Village Magistrate contradicts that of the appellant. The appellant''s statement is made with reference to a different occasion from that to which the
Village Magistrate speaks, and, therefore; they are not contradictory of each other. Srinivasaraghavachari may have made different statements to
these persons on the two different occasions. There is, therefore, no probability of securing the appellant''s conviction even if sanction is granted,
and we, therefore, set aside the sanction accorded by the Sessions Judge.