SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(All) 32

S.D.KHARE, YASHODANANDAN
Sita Ram – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
T. Rathore, for Applicant; R.R. Shukla, for the State.

Judgement

S. D. KHARE, J. :- In both these criminal revisions, which have come before us for disposal on a reference made by a learned single Judge, it has to be considered whether the bar of Section 197 Cr. P.C. will apply in the case of a Lekhpal in Uttar Pradesh and he cannot be prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 218 I.P.C. without first obtaining the sanction of the Governor. Such sanction would be necessary if he is a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government and the offence alleged to have been committed by him had been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The learned single Judge allowed this plea to be raised for the first time at the stage of revision because it affects the question of jurisdiction.

2. In both these cases the previous sanction of the Governor had not been obtained before launching the prosecution.

3. The prosecution story in Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 1964, briefly stated, was that the complainant Rampat was the tenant of plot No. 769, measuring 35 decimals, situate in village Kharawan, district Varanasi. He had become its bhum


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top