JANWAHAR Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE counsel for the applicants has pressed the application in revision mainly on two grounds?firstly ,that there was no proper sanction to prosecute the applicants Under Section 10, Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1946, and secondly, that there was no application on behalf of the prosecution to try the case summarily.

(3.) THE complaint before the tri3l Court was lodged on 12-6-1948, and the processes against the applicants wore issued the game day for their presence on 8-7-1948. The sanction of the Chief Commissioner appears to have been filed before the trial Court on 8-7-1948. The sanction or the other papers on the record of the trial Court in no way go to show as to what facts had been placed for obtaining sanction before the Chief Commissioner, The sanction, in the circumstances, could be held to be no valid sanction within the meaning of Section 10, Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1916. The counsel for the applicants baa drawn ray attention to the ruling reported in Gokul Chand Dwarka Das v. The King A. I. R. (35) 1948 P. C. 82 : 49 Cr. L. J. 261, wherein it has been laid down as below: A sanction which simply names the person to be prosecuted and specifies the provision of the order which he is alleged to have contravened 1b not a sufficient compliance in cl. 23. In order to comply with the provisions of el. 23, it must be proved that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged. It 13 plainly desirable that the fact should be referred to on the face of the sanction, but this is not essential since cl. 23 does cot require the sanction to be in any particular form, nor even to be in writing. But if the facts constituting the offence charged are not shown on the face of the sanction, the prosecution must prove by extraneous evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. The sanction to prosecute is an important matter; it constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution and the Government have an absolute discretion to grant or withhold their sanction. They are not concerned merely to see that evidence discloses a prima facie case against the person sought to be prosecuted. They can refuse sanction on any ground which commends itself to them, for example, that on political or economic grounds they regard a prosecution as inexpedient. Where facts are not referred to on the face of the sanction nor is it proved by extraneous evidence that they are placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction is invalid, and the trial Court would not be a Court of competent jurisdiction. This being as the defect cannot be cured Under Section 637, Criminal P. C. , as a defect in the jurisdiction of the Court can never be Under section Section 37.