AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das, J.—These applications are directed against the order of Mr. S.L. Gupta, Additional District Magistrate of Patna, according sanction to the opposite party to prosecute the petitioners u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
It appears that the petitioner in the Revision Case No. 416 instituted criminal proceedings against the opposite party with reference to a certain plot of land. His case was that the opposite party was a non occupancy raiyat in respect of the plot of land and was so recorded in the Record of Rights, that he abandoned the holding and on such abandonment the landlord settled the land with the petitioner and that he grew the crops, but that the opposite party carried them away. That was the case as made by him in the Criminal Courts and in support of his case he produced the record as a no occupancy tenant holding for one year only. The Court of first instance believed his case and convicted the opposite party. There was an, appeal to Mr. S.N. Gupta, who took a different view on the facts of the case and set aside the conviction. But it is certainly noteworthy that in the judgment of Mr. S.L. Gupta allowing the appeal of the opposite party, there is not one word to suggest that there was any perjury committed by the petitioners before him. He took the view that there was a bona fide civil dispute between the parties and that the story of running away was manifestly incredible, as on the complainant''s own evidence the accused continued uprooting the crops in spite of the protest and was. still in the act when he returned with the Chowkidar. The opposite party then applied before the Trial Court u/s 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for sanction to prosecute the petitioners u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court declined to accord sanction They than came up to Mr. S.L. Gupta again and asked him to grant them sanction to prosecute. Mr. S.L. Gupta has now accorded sanction to the, opposite party.
In my opinion this is not a case in which sanction should have been granted at all.. On the facts the two Courts took two different views. The Trial Court convicted the opposite party. It may be that the conviction was wrong and it may be that Mr. S.L. Gupta was quits right in setting aside the conviction, But still the fact remains that on the facts two Courts took two different views. That being( so, it is impossible to see how sanction could be granted for prosecution of any one. I must revoke the sanction which has been granted in this case by Mr. S.L. Gupta.