9911796707
TMI Blog1949 (11) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, Bombay. The charge against the 1st Appellant was that he being a public servant accepted a sum of Rs. 1,000 for hearing to prosecute a metal merchant named Vakharia and thereby committed offence punishable under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd Appellant was charge with abetting that offence. An appeal by the 1st Appellant to the High Court at Bombay was dismissed on 20th March, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings because no sanction to the prosecution had been given and that on the merits of the case the Appellant had been wrongly convicted. It was then stated "The grounds, upon which your Petitioner seeks leave to appeal are; (i) that the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Lokur erred in holding that sanction was not required to empower the Court to take cognizance of the charge against your Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious sanction of the Governor-General In council under sec. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was without jurisdiction, that therefore, the trial of your Petitioner jointly with him for abetment of the offence alleged to have been committed by the said Zutshi was also illegal and that the conviction and sentence passed upon your petitioner should be set aside. 4. On this petition leave to appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dency Magistrate, Their Lordships would only be prepared to allow such an argument in an exceptional case. In the present case, it was argued ' that the new ground of appeal raised a question of jurisdiction, and their Lordships permitted the argument to proceed. The argument was that the trial and conviction of the Appellants were void because the police investigation which led up to the tria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h authorised the police to investigate the alleged offence. Such a fault in procedure might have important consequences but it could not in their Lordships' judgment deprive the Chief Presidency Magistrate of his jurisdiction to try the Appellants. 7. Their Lordships do not propose to consider whether there was any fault in procedure in this case because it would be entirely contrary to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
