Queen Empress Vs. Jethmal Jayraj

stamp act i of 1879, sections 64 and 69 - refusal to give receipt--sanction of collector necessary before prosecution--jurisdiction want of. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. west, j.1. the jurisdiction of the magistrate in this case depended on sanction to the prosecution by the collector. it was essential, therefore, that the record of the conviction should evidence such sanction. it does not contain any written sanction, nor any note even of sanction having been given to the prosecution. the conviction, therefore, must be reversed, as the trial was held without jurisdiction. the fine to be restored.