PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KURABA SANJEEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises in this case is whether sanction should be accorded to prosecute the respondent under Section 103 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that the respondent, along with some others, was involved in a criminal case. On 20-12-1957, she was produced before the Judl. Second Class Magistrate, Hindupur, for recording her confessional statement and her statement was actually recorded the next day. A few days later, i.e., on 2-1-1958, she was tendered pardon by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Penukonda who was duly empowered by the District Magistrate to do so. It is stated that she stuck to her previous statement, namely, that the offence was committed by the other accused in the case with her help. But when she was cited as a prosecution witness in the committal Court on 4-2-1958, she went back upon it and denied knowledge of the commission of the offence. It appears that she adopted the same attitude even in the Sessions Court. There being therefore no evidence in support of the prosecution case all the accused were acquitted. It is represented that the Sessions Judge remarked that the version as given by the respondent both in the committal Court and in the Sessions Court was not shown to be an untrue one. That finding has not been challenged before us or in any appeal against the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case.

(3.) This petition is taken out for according sanction to prosecute the respondent as required by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code for an offence under Section 193, I. P. C. In support of this petition it is argued that if her statements before the Committal Court and the Sessions Court are true it follows as a necessary corollary that the confession made by her must be a false one and as such the prosecution is entitled to proceed against" her under Section 193, I.P.C., provided that the requisite sanction of this Court is given.