BHAGWATI MISIR Vs. RAM DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against the order of the District Magistrate of Basti, dated the 22nd of October 1912, whereby he granted sanction to the other party, to prosecute Bhagwati Misir, under Sections 193 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are briefly as follows: The applicant, Bhagwati Misir, is the servant of one Rajit Ram. Between Rajit Ram and the opposite party there appears to be a dispute in regard to some jungle land bearing trees. From the record I gather that there has been a riot. Bhagwati came to the Court and laid a complaint against Ram Dial, Ghirrao and Ali Khan or Ali Jan, accusing them of having voluntarily caused grievous hurt, His, statement briefly put was that they were cutting certain trees in the jungle, that he went to protest and that Ram Dial struck him with a lathi on the middle finger of the right hand, completely severing the upper joint. The medical evidence proved very clearly that the upper joint of the finger had been roughly amputated by some sharp weapon. In view of the medical evidence, the Magistrate had to acquit the accused. The judgment ended as follows: "Probably there was some quarrel and the complainant received some slight injury on his finger. There is, however, no evidence of this fact on the record". When the opposite side applied for sanction, the Magistrate refused to grant the sanction mainly on the ground that the granting of it would merely keep open the feud between the parties and because he was not satisfied that there was no just and lawful ground for the complaint. On an application in revision, the District Magistrate has granted the sanction for the prosecution of Bhagwati under Sections 93 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, and in his order he details a part of Bhagwati s evidence, which he deems to be false, and which runs as follows: "A portion of the finger was severed. I searched and found the severed portion of my finger. I have it here just now with me". 1 am asked to set aside the sanction. In my opinion, it is highly inadvisable to give sanction to one party in such a matter where there is a dispute over property as this. The party who receives the sanction uses it as a means of revenge or extorting from his opponent an admission of his claim. He does not look at the matter from the point of view of the public welfare. At the same time, the case appears to be such that the Court trying it ought to have taken action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and itself to have made complaint against the person, who made the charge or committed perjury. The matter having come to the notice of this Court in the course of this judicial proceeding, 1 think that the sanction should be set aside and that I should take proceedings under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I, therefore, set aside the sanction granted by the Court below and I direct that separate proceedings be instituted and notice issued to Bhagwati Misir to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Sections 193 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of this matter.