BALA PASBAN KULDIP LAL Vs. GURWAR MISSER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of prosecution under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that it has been made without jurisdiction. The circumstances under which the order in question has been made may be briefly recited.

(2.) It appears that, in the course of a rent suit, process was served upon the defendant. The peon learnt subsequently that there had been false personation in connection with the service. He reported the matter to the Court with the result that a fresh summons was issued and served on the real defendant. An application was thereupon made by a stranger to the suit for sanction to prosecute three persons under Section 205, Indian Penal Code. The Court refused the application, mainly, on the ground that sanction ought not to be granted to a person who was not a party to the proceeding and was apparently in no way interested in the matter before the Court. He then appealed to the District Judge under Sub-section (6) of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge held that no sanction ought to be granted to a stranger, but upon the facts placed before him, he came to the conclusion that proceedings should be taken under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. He, therefore, gave notice to the parties, took evidence and made an order under that section, because, in his opinion, a strong prima facie case was established that the offence alleged had been committed.

(3.) We are now invited to set aside this order on the ground that it was incompetent to the learned Judge to make an order under Section 476 inasmuch as the commission of the alleged offence was not brought to his notice in the course of a judicial proceeding. In support of this view, reliance has been placed upon the cases of Jadunath Mahta v. Jogadish Chandra Deb 7 C.W.N. 423 and In the matter of Mathura Das 16 A. 80.