J C GALSTAUN Vs. BANKU BEHARY DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule granted by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Suhrawardy and Mr. Justice Mitter calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused, the opposite party in this Rule, should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate has erred in holding that the Land Acquisition Collector is a Court and as such his sanction was necessary for a prosecution under Section 207, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts of the case are briefly these : The petitioner sought to prosecute the opposite party for having fraudulently claimed the compensation awarded in respect of Premises No. 10, Howe's Lane, before the Second Land Acquisition Collector knowing that he had no right or rightful claim to such award intending thereby to prevent that money from being taken in execution of a decree or order which had been made or which he knew was likely to be made further by a Court of justice in a civil Court suit and the petitioner contended that thereby the opposite party had committed an offence under Section 207, Indian Penal Code. The case proceeded for some time and a. certain number of witnesses were examined. Then the learned Magistrate Mr. H.K. De passed the following order: This is a case under Section 207 Indian Penal Code. From the ruling cited before me I am of opinion that the Land Acquisition Collector s-Court is a competent Court and as such under Section 195(1)(b), Criminal P.C. without the sanction in writing of the Collector the complainant has no legs to stand upon. No sanction in writing of the Collector has been adduced in evidence. The prosecution has not called the Collector. I, therefore, discharge the accused, under Section 253, Criminal P.C.

(3.) I may here point out that Section 195, Criminal P.C. as it now stands contemplates not a sanction but a complaint by a public servant so far as Clause (a) is concerned or by a Court under Clauses (b) and (c). Apparently the amendment of the Code made in 1923 has escaped the notice of the learned Magistrate.