AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Fawcett, J.—In this case it is said that sanction is necessary for the prosecution of the applicant u/s 195 (1) (c), Criminal Procedure Code. This, however, assumes that the word ''Court'' in that clause includes a Court in a Native State such as Baroda State. As at present advised, we do not think that that word can possibly be HO construed, and we may refer to Chanmalapa Chenbasapa Tenguikai Vs. Abdul Vahab Muhamed Hussein, in support of this view. Obviously there is a difficulty in supposing that the legislature intended that complaints or sanctions should be made or issued by Courts not within the territorial jurisdiction of the legislature but outside its control.
Madgavkar, J.
I agree. The opening words of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, "no Court shall take cognizance," clearly limit the meaning of the word ''Court'' to British Indian Courts to which alone the British Indian Legislature could direct the prohibition which follows in the section. It is, therefore, difficult to attach a wider meaning to the same word ''Court'' in the remaining clauses of Section 195. Moreover, Section 1 limits the ambit of the Code to British India, and no reason is shown for widening the meaning of the Courts in British India to Courts in Native States, as is sought by the applicant. The application must, in my opinion, fail.