RASH BEHARI DE Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under the provisions of Section 439, Criminal P.C. directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, L.A.D., dated 25 -10 -49, toy which he dismissed an appeal preferred toy the applicant against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate of the 1st Class, Tezpur, under Section 161, Penal Code.

(2.) THE only ground seriously urged before us is that the learned 1st Class Magistrate, Tezpur, who tried the case was not competent to take cognizance of the complaint without previous sanction as required by Section 6(c) of Act II (2) of 1947 passed by the Indian Legislature. Section 6 is in these terms:

(3.) ON the merits of the case, Mr. Ghose contended that the inferences which the Courts below have drawn from proved facts do not necessarily connect the applicant with the commission of the crime. We do not think the case has been decided on inferences drawn from proved facts, but upon appreciation of the evidence recorded in the case; nor do we think that the inferences which the Courts below have, drawn from proved facts fail to connect the applicant with the commission of the crime. When the Inspector of Police, Anti -Corruption Branch, was apprised of the fact that the applicant was demanding a bribe, he took a ten -rupee note from one Golok and interviewed the Deputy Commissioner who requested Mr. Kalita, a Magistrate, to assist the Inspector of Police. The Magistrate noted the number of the ten -rupee note. Golok then, in the company of one Dhiren, went to the F.W.D. office, where he met the applicant. The applicant took Golok and Dhiren to the office tea -room and there Golok handed over the ten -rupee note to the applicant who put the ten -rupee note into his pocket and left the room. Golok followed him. Dhiren then went out and signalled to P.W. 9 who was waiting in the Court compound. P.W. 9 informed the Inspector of Police who took the Magistrate to the applicant and the Magistrate searched the applicant's person and found the marked ten -rupee note. This direct evidence was accepted by the Courts below, and we see no reason to take a different view.