TRAILOKYA NATH BANERJEE Vs. RADHARANJAN ALIAS BONOMALI BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner has been granted to the opposite party, The prosecution for which sanction has thus been granted is with reference to a written statement in which in a certain suit brought against the petitioner he denied the execution of a certain hand-note. This written statement was filed on the 18 July 1919. On the 6th November of that year a co-sharer with the opposite party in a certain property purchased by the petitioner brought against the opposite party criminal proceedings alleging misappropriation by the opposite party of her share in the purchase money. In these proceedings the petitioner was examined as a witness and there be admitted that, as a matter of fact, he had executed this hand-note and that the sum of Rs. 250 in respect of which the hand-note was executed had not been, as he had alleged in his written statement, paid with the rest of the consideration money in cash. The sanction given for his prosecution is under Sec. 199 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It has been argued before us that this section can have no application to the facts alleged. That is probably correct. But when reference is made to Sec. 191 it will be seen that though Sec. 199 may not be applicable Sec. 193 will clearly apply. The only question really before us then is whether the ends of justice require that there should be a prosecution of the petitioner in respect of his written statement filed on the 18 July 1919. On the whole after some consideration we think that after this lapse of time the ends of justice do not require that there should be a prosecution in respect of what may be spoken of as the petitioner's temporary lapse from probity not persisted in but rather apparently repented of.

(3.) We, therefore, make this Rule absolute and set aside the sanction granted, for the prosecution of the petitioner and the proceedings that have been taken thereunder.