NATARAJA PILLAI Vs. RANGASWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Subdivisional Magistrate, Tanjore, passed an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, prohibiting certain persons (respondents before us) from interference with the performance of a certain religious ceremony. Respondents are said to have disobeyed this order: and the Subdivisional Magistrate thereupon sanctioned their prosecution for an offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge, purporting to act under Sub- section 6 of Section 195 revoked his sanction.

(2.) We are now asked to revise his order: and the first ground taken is that, as the case falls under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195, the power of revocation lay with the District Magistrate, not with the Sessions Judge, and that the latter's order was without jurisdiction.

(3.) The question has to be decided with reference to the provisions of Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 195. There is no doubt that, if the general principle of Sub-section (6) is applied, the proper authority to revoke the sanction is the District Magistrate--vide Section 17 (1) and (5), Criminal Procedure Code. But it is contended that the Subdivisional Magistrate must be regarded as a "Court," when issuing an order under Section 144 and (consequentially) when sanctioning prosecution for breach of the same, and that it follows that the special test laid down in Sub-section (7) for determining the subordination of "Courts" in this connection applies. If so, the proper authority to revoke is undeniably the Sessions Judge.