Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 2193 1961 SLD 2193 = 1961 PLD 440
Dacca High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 220 and 277 of 1960, decided on 24th August 1960.
Presented By: Baquer, J
  T. Ali with Abdul Hakim for Appellants.   Afzalul Haq for the State.

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Appellants  

VERSUS

  THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: Ss. 494 & 403

(a) Sanction to prosecute-----   -----Case withdrawn under S. 494, Cr. P. C. for want of sanction-Sanction later can be accorded on basis of old records-Fresh investigation and fresh report not necessary-Objection as to validity of sanction-To be raised at earliest opportunity.   A case against the accused was originally started by the prose cution without obtaining sanction. The case was, therefore, withdrawn under section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, and subsequently after proper sanction was obtained charge sheet was submitted against the accused for their trial by the Special Judge. The sanctioning authority while granting sanction relied on the old records for the satisfaction required for granting sanction. Objection was taken that in the absence of fresh investi gation and report the sanctioning authority wrongly relied on old records :   Held, that there was nothing to debar sanction on the basis of the old materials against the accused. Fresh investigation and fresh report were not necessary. All that was necessary was that the sanctioning authority should apply its mind to the material before it :   Further, that objection as to validity of sanction cannot be agitated before the Appellate Court when the opportunity was not taken at the trial Court itself.   (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-----   ---- Ss. 494 & 403- Discharge of accused on withdrawal of case under S. 494-Fresh prosecution on same facts not barred under S. 403.   An order made under section 494 (a) of the Criminal Proce dure Code, 1898 is an order of discharge of the accused person and, therefore, section 403 of the Code does not debar the entertainment of a fresh complaint on the same facts.   Emperor v. Menghraj Devidas 23 C L J 305 distinguished.   Hata v. Emperor 30 C L J 233 ; Hukum Singh v. Emperor 30 C L J 1149 and Ramananda Lal v. Ali Hossain and others 26 C L J 129 rel.   (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-----   ------- Ss. 170 & 419-Different offences-Person charged with offence under both sections Offence under S.419 found not established-Conviction under S. 170-Not invalid.   Where a person…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register