BUDHU LALL Vs. CHOTU GOPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are six applications made to this Court under the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and of Section 195 (6) read with Section 195 (7) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) In each case the applicant was the defendant and the opposite party the plaintiff in a suit brought in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The suit having been dismissed, the defendants applied to the Trial Judge for sanction to prosecute the plaintiffs under Sections 209 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Sanction having been refused, in these applications, for the hearing of which I and Chaudhuri, J., have been constituted a Divisional Bench by his Lordship the Chief Justice, we are invited to revise and set aside the order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes and to giant the sanction for which application was, and is, made.

(3.) At the hearing Babu Manmatha Nath Mukerjee, a Vakil enrolled and ordinarily practising in this Court, was authorised by the plaintiffs-opposite parties to appear and plead on their behalf and the question therefore, arose whether in these matters he as a Vakil was entitled to be heard On this question we have heard on the one side the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Bar, and also learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society and of the Attorney on the record, and on the other side the learned Government Pleader Mr. Ram Charan Mitter, appearing on behalf of the Vakil Bar. I have now to give my reasons for holding, as differing from my learned colleague I did, that in the matters now before us the Vakil claiming the right of audience was entitled to be heard. As, however, the question is to be determined only incidentally to and for the purposes of the hearing before us, I need not set out my reasons at any great length.