LAXMAN ZUJYA BHATKAR PATIL Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the accused against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thana, dismissing their revision application directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Bassein in a case in which they were charged for an offence under Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Ex -Communication Act, 1949.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution was that the community of Christian Kolis of Bassein, to which both the complainant and the accused belonged, held a meeting on February 10, 1955, in which they asked him to tender an apology to one Jebubai in respect of an alleged assault. The complainant, however, did not do so and, therefore, he together with the members of his family was excommunicated and the ex -communication was thereafter communicated by beat of drum to the members of the community. It was alleged that this ex -communication was also communicated to the Christian Kolis in other villages. The complainant Anton and others then approached the authorities in the matter. The District Magistrate at Thana on their application for sanction to prosecute the accused passed an order authorising them to prosecute the accused. In consequence of this sanction a complaint was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Bassein by the police constable Kabal on August, 10, 1955. The case was thereafter transferred to the Borivli Court. After the extension of the Greater Bombay limits, however, the case went back again to the Bassein Court and a de novo trial was held there. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence led by both the sides came to the conclusion that the sanction was proper and that the offence charged against the accused was proved. he, therefore, convicted them and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. Against this order, the accused filed a revision application in the Sessions Court at Thana. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments advanced on both the sides agreed with the conclusions reached by the learned Magistrate, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by him and dismissed the application. It is against this order of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the application of the accused that the present revision application has been filed in this Court.

(3.) IT may be noted that the present Section 195 which was introduced in the Code by the Amendment Act of 1923 does not refer to any Court taking cognizance of an offence except with the previous sanction of any particular authority. But the old Section 195 did refer to such previous sanction being necessary before the Court could take cognizance of certain offences, and that is how the decision in the case cited above becomes relevant and useful for the purpose of deciding the question before me. As observed above, Section 6 of the Ex -Communication Act does not refer to the previous sanction to prosecute being given to any particular individual so that such individual alone can file a complaint on the basis of which the Court may take cognizance of the offence. All that the section requires is a previous sanction to the prosecution, that is to say, in the words of the decision in the above Bombay case, 'sanction to the criminal Courts concerned to take cognizance of certain offences specified in the section'. In that view of the matter, although the sanction in the present case directed certain five persons to prosecute the accused, it appears that in. giving such sanction the learned District Magistrate had really gone beyond what he was required to do under Section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Ex -Communication Act, 1949. It was not necessary for him to authorise any one or more persons to file a complaint to prosecute the accused in regard to the offence under theEx -Communication Act. All that was necessary for him to do, on the facts constituting the offence being brought to his notice, was to sanction the prosecution of those persons who were alleged to be guilty of the offence, whereupon the Court would be entitled to take cognizance of the offence irrespective of whether the complaint was filed by the person aggrieved or by any other person whatever. under criminal law it is not necessary that a complaint should be filed only by the person aggrieved or against whom an offence is committed, except, of course, in certain cases. A complaint may be made, even by a person who comes to know of the commission of an offence. Accordingly, once a sanction for the prosecution of a person charged with an offence as required by the Ex -Communication Act is granted by the District Magistrate in general terms without directing it to any particular individual, the Magistrate concerned would be entitled to take cognizance of theoffence, regardless of the complaint being filed by the person aggrieved or by any other person whatsoever. If that is the correct view of the law on this question, in my opinion, the sanction granted in this particular case, though going a little beyond the limits of the section itself, is perfectly valid in so far as the District Magistrate after applying his mind to the papers produced before him thought it proper to sanction the prosecution of the accused. It is true that none of the persons who were authorised by the District Magistrate to prosecute the accused had filed the complaint and it was a police constable who had filed it before the learned Magistrate. In so far as, however, the complaint recited that the sanction was accorded by the District Magistrate for the prosecution of the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Ex -Communication Act, the learned Magistrate was perfectly entitled to take cognizance of the offence with which the accused were charged. In my opinion, therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Chari, the learned Counsel for the accused, that the complaint was not properly filed or that the sanction was not properly given and that, therefore, the entire proceedings were bad in law, cannot be sustained. The learnedMagistrate, in my judgment, did take cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Ex -Communication Act with which the accused were charged, with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate.