High CourtsDivision Bench(1923) 10 MAD CK 0005

Muthiah Goundan and Others vs Chinna Nallappa Goundan and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 October 1923 · Citation: 83 Ind. Cas. 702 : (1924) 19 LW 392

HON’BLE JUDGES
Wallace, J · Ramesam, 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

9 paragraphs · 189 words
1.

We think there has been an enquiry before the District Munsif on the application for sanction. Even if Exhibit B is not proved, Exhibit A is.

evidence and is enough to make out a prima facie case. It may be that the District Judge is not altogether correct in saying that no enquiry is

necessary but his error is immaterial. There has been an enquiry in this case sufficient in our opinion, having regard to the nature of the statements in

the counter-petition and we are also of opinion that the Courts below have exercised their judicial discretion as to whether the sanction is

necessary in the public interest.

2.

We do not think that it can be inferred from. Public Prosecutor v. Raver Unithiri 24 Ind. Cas. 145 : 26 M.L.J. 511 : 15 M.L.T. 403 : 15

Cri.L.J. 409 that the sanction of the First Court and a complaint based on it lapse. We are unable to hold that the new Criminal Procedure Code

Amending Act affects the sanction or the complaint filed under it under the Act before the amendment.

3.

The petition is dismissed.