BENI PERSHAD Vs. SARJU PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision. It appears that on the 31st March 1910 the applicants obtained a compromise decree in the Munsif s Court. The suit in which the decree was granted was conversant with a claim by the applicants on two bonds and the matter resulted in a compromise and a decree in accordance with that compromise. On the 28th September 1910, that is to say, six months after, the opposite party applied for sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to institute a prosecution under Section 209, Indian Penal Code, against the applicants for having fraudulently or dishonestly or with intent to injure or annoy the opposite party made a false claim. THIS application was made to the Munsif who threw out the application or grounds more or less technical. On the 1st of October 1910, an application for the restoration of the application for sanction was made by the same party, and this was also thrown out. Thereupon, the opposite party applied under Clause (6) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the sanction which was refused by the Munsif might be granted by the District Judge. The District Judge, by his order dated the 20th January 1911, made an order in the following terms: "I set aside these refusals and remand the case to the Munsif of Bansgaon with direction to apply his mind to the facts and come to a decision (a) whether any criminal offence has been committed, (b) whether, if so, it is necessary in the interests] of justice that there should be a prosecution, (c) if so, whether it is advisable to grant the sanction applied for or whether action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be a better course. It is because Section 476 can be made use of by the Munsif and cannot by myself that I do not decide the question in this Court." It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to make this order. It must be admitted that the powers of the learned District Judge so far as the present application is concerned are confined to the powers conferred on him by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Clause (6) provides that "any sanction given or refused under this section may be revoked or granted by any authority to which the authority giving or refusing it is subordinate", and the learned District Judge has neither revoked nor granted the sanction. His order amongst other things directs the Munsif to consider whether or not the latter should exercise the power conferred on him by Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, powers which the learned Judge admits that he himself has not got to exercise in the present case. Mr. Satya Chander, on behalf of the respondent, relies on the Full Bench ruling of this Court which decides that a Court exercising the powers conferred by Section 195 is a Civil Court and not a Criminal Court and that, therefore, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure enabling the Appellate Court to remand cases and send down issues apply. I am, of course, bound by the ruling in the Pull Bench case referred to, but, in my opinion, even assuming the Court to be a Civil Court its powers in cases like the present are confined to powers conferred on it by Section 195. In my opinion the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order in the present case. In any event, after the parties had compromised, I hardly think it was a case to sanction. I, therefore, allow this application and set aside the order of the District Judge dated the 20th January 1911.