This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed against the order made by the learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in C.C. No. 8583 of 1950.

The facts are: The petitioner was employed as a Food Inspector in the service of the Corporation of Madras. He was charged by the Special Branch Police for an offence under section 161, Indian Penal Code, in that he received a sum of Rs. 50 from K. Sarangapani Naicker, a milkman as illegal gratification. The case was tried before the Fifth Presidency Magistrate in C.C. No. 1137 of 1949. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 1949 and this was disposed of by Panchapagesa Sastry, J.

The relevant portion of the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastry, J. is as follows:

"It is conceded by the State Prosecutor that if the sanction granted is illegal then, the conviction cannot stand. The ground of objection urged against the validity of the sanction is that the facts relating to the alleged offence were not placed before the sanctioning authority or rather that there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution that the facts were so placed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Judicial Committee reported in Gokulchand Dwartcadas v. The King1.

The learned Judge accepted this contention and concluded:

"It follows that it is not proved that the sanction accorded is legal. If so, the conviction cannot stand. In this view it is unnecessary to deal with the question as to whether the offence is brought home to the appellant; nor is it necessary to refer to the other contentions raised by the learned advocate for the appellant. In the result the conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Fine, if paid, will be refunded."

Subsequently the Special Branch Police after rectifying the defect mentioned above has charge-sheeted the petitioner and it has been taken on file and numbered as C.C. No. 8583 of 1950 on the file of the Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore.

The preliminary objection taken by the petitioner was that he having been acquitted by the High Court a second trial was barred under section 403, Criminal Procedure Code and that in any case Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India prohibited a second trial.

The learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate went into the question thoroughly and overruled this objection and hence this Criminal Revision Petition. In my opinion the two points taken relating to section 403, Criminal Procedure Code and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India are without any substance.

Point I-It is an elementary proposition that to bar a fresh trial under section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, the Court by which the accused was first tried should be competent to try the offence. Therefore where the sanction or complaint by a particular person or authority is necessary under the law for the trial of a person, the question arises whether in the absence of such sanction or complaint a Court which tries him is a Court of competent jurisdiction. On this question there was conflict of decisions. The majority of the High Courts have held that the Court could not be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction in such cases because the trial without a proper complaint was void under section 530 and therefore a judgment of acquittal which ensued was also void and so there was nothing which the accused could compel a Court to recognise in support of a plea of previous acquittal. These conflicts have been happily set at rest by a decision of the Privy Council in Usufalli v. King Emperor1. Their Lordships of the Privy Council have held that where there was no valid sanction for the prosecution of the accused the prosecution was a nullity and the order of the Magistrate acquitting the accused (or convicting as the case may be) was without