HARI CHARAN MISRA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was committed for trial by the Deputy Magistrate of Bhagalpur on a charge of criminal conspiracy punishable under Secs.467 and 471, Penal Code. By the provisions of Section 196 A-(2), Criminal P.C., the sanction of the Local Government was necessary to the initiation of proceedings before the Court could take cognizance of offence; but this sanction has not been obtained. The trial proceeded to the stage at which the opinion of the assessors was taken, when it was brought to the notice of the Assistant Sessions Judge that he bad no power to deal with the case. He then held that the trial which had taken place was ab initio void, and he passed no sentence of conviction or acquittal.

(2.) He directed that the District Magistrate should be informed on the facts, and that the accused persons should remain in the position in which they were before the inquiry began. The case had been originally instituted on the complaint of the local Superintendent of Post Offices. After the order had been recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, sanction from the Local Government was obtained to the prosecution under Secs.467 and 471 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. A fresh complaint was made and the Magistrate proceeded to hold a new inquiry under Ch. 18, Criminal P.C. We are asked to stay further proceedings in this inquiry on the ground that the Assistant Sessions Judge acted illegally in failing to deliver final judgment, and that the trial before him must be treated as still pending.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner argues that the Assistant Sessions Judge, when he had once entered on the trial, had no alternative but to proceed to judgment. He cites the decision in the case of Nathu Rewa V/s. Emperor AIR 1915 Bom 149 wherein a Sessions Judge finding at the end of the trial that there had been a misjoinder of charges cancelled the trial, and decided to hold a fresh trial against the accused. The Bombay High Court held that when the Sessions Judge had reached the stage at which the assessors opinion had been recorded, he had no option but to deliver judgment in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.