MUTHIAH GOUNDAN Vs. CHINNA NALLAPPA GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We think there has been an enquiry before the District Munsif on the application for sanction. Even if Ex. B is not proved, Ex. A is evidence and is enough to make out a prima facie ease. It may be that the District Judge is not altogether correct in saying that no enquiry is necessary but his error is immaterial. There has been an enquiry in this case, sufficient in our opinion, having regard to the nature of the statements in the counter-petition and we are also of opinion that the Courts below have exercised their judicial discretion as to whether the sanction is necessary in the public interest.

(2.) We do not think that it can be inferred from The Public Prosecutor V/s. Raver Unithiri (1913) 26 M.L.J. 511, that the sanction of the first Court and a complaint based on it lapse. We are unable to hold that the new Criminal Procedure Code Amending Act affects the sanction, or the complaint filed under it under the Act before the amendment.

(3.) The petition is dismissed.