In Re: BadiuddIn Sarfuddin

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 195(1)(a)-order passed by a first class magistrate under section 145-disobedience of the order-transfer of the magistrate-sanction to prosecute-district magistrate cannot grant sanction.;a magistrate of the first class having passed an order under section 145 of the criminal procedure code was transferred to another place. his revenue charge was made over to another magistrate, and his judicial charge went to the city magistrate. the order made was disobeyed. an application for sanction to prosecute under section 195(1)(a) of the criminal procedure code was made to the district, magistrate:-;that the district magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant the sanction; and that the sessions court only could entertain the application.;per shah acting c.j.- 'under clause (a), sub-section (1) of section 195, if a public servant making the order is a court, in respect of that order, the court to which that court would be subordinate would be the court) to which appeals would ordinarily lie.';arunachalam pillai v. ponnusami pillai (1918) i.l.r. 42 mad. 64, followed. - .....he would be subordinate in that capacity would be the sessions court to which appeals from his decisions as a first class magistrate would ordinarily lie. on that ground the district magistrate refused to entertain the application. we are not concerned with the application which the complainant subsequently made to the sessions court, nor with the result of that application. the present application is against the order of the district magistrate; and it is urged on his behalf that mr. date must be taken to have made his order as a public servant within the meaning of clause (a), sub-section (1) of section 195, criminal procedure code, and that though he was a first class magistrate as a public servant he must be taken to be subordinate to the district magistrate, though as a court he may not be subordinate to the court of the district magistrate within the meaning of section 195. on the construction of the section, i do not feel any difficulty in disallowing this contention, but the point has been decided by the madras high court in the case of arunachalam pillai v. ponnusami pillai i.l.r. (1918) mad. 64 and it is needless to deal with it at any length. i accept the view taken in that case and hold that under clause (a), sub-section (1) of section 195, if a public servant making the order is a court, in respect of that order, the court to which that court would be subordinate would be the court to which appeals would ordinarily lie, that is, in the present case, the sessions court and not the district magistrate. i am of opinion that the order of the district magistrate is right.2. i would discharge the rulecrump, j.3. i concur.