STATE Vs. KULDIP SINGH SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents, five in number, were tried upon a charge under section 32/36 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and acquitted on the ground that a previous order of acquittal stood in the way of a conviction upon a second prosecution.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the five respondents who are officials of the Custodian's Department were suspected of having "maneuvered" a wrongful allotment in the name of one Ladha Mal who had been allotted land in a certain village. A report was made and the case was registered on 24-7-1956. Sanction by the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, for the prosecution as required by section 38 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act was given on 12-6-1957. The challan was put into Court on 25-2-1958. After a number of witnesses had been examined, the representative of the State thought that no sanction as required by section 38 was in existence. He, therefore, made a prayer that the case may be dismissed on this ground. The trail Magistrate accordingly made an order on 2-6-1958 of which the concluding portion is as follows:

(3.) THE accused were, therefore, acquitted on the ground that in the absence of a valid sanction under section 38 the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case against them. It transpired later that this was due to an entire misconception on the part of the representative of the State. When proceedings were started a second time, it was realised that the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, had given his sanction on 12-6-1957, i. e. , some months before the case was put in to Court. The accused raised the plea that they had been validly acquitted upon the previous occasion because the sanction was in existence and the Court had jurisdiction to pass an order of conviction or of acquittal. Whether the order of acquittal was based upon a misconception in the mind of the prosecuting agency, the order of acquittal was valid because the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner vested the Court with jurisdiction to pass and order of acquittal. The learned trial Magistrate followed the decision of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. Pritam Singh, AIR 1948 Cal 128.