1937 (9) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t a non-cognizable offence unless the previous sanction of the Local Government or of the District Magistrate has been obtained. The offence punishable by Section 386, Indian Penal Code, is (rather strangely) non-cognizable. Admittedly, no sanction to prosecute or to initiate these proceedings was obtained. Admittedly also this objection to the Court's jurisdiction was not taken in the lower Court, but has been made for the first time in this petition. 3. Now it has been held in Abdul Rahaman v. Emperor I.L.R (1935) 62 Cal. 749 that failure to comply strictly with Section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code, is not a sufficient ground for quashing proceedings. If proceedings are initiated without formal sanction and end in the conviction of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....should be suitably admonished. But when a case has been initiated and has ended in conviction, it is obvious that there never was any innocent person to be protected from persecution. In other words Section 196-A was designed to safeguard persons from frivolous accusations of criminal conspiracy, not as a loophole of escape for persons committed after full magisterial inquiry on a charge of criminal conspiracy or convicted after full trial of criminal conspiracy. 4. But it has been held in Varadarajulu Naidu v. King-Emperor MANU/TN/0030/1919 : (1919)37MLJ81 by a Bench of this Court that a sanction to prosecute for criminal conspiracy, given after the filing of the complaint, does not fulfil the requirements of Section 196-A. This decision ....