Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram NaraIn Vs. Harbans Singh

Ram Narain vs Harbans Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 02, 1923
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/474784

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Section 115 - Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 195(6)--Sanction to prosecute refused by Munsif but given by District Judge--Revision. - - 3. If these applications which are now before me are to be treated as applications in revision they are governed by the pro...

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Narain

Respondent

Harbans Singh

Legal References

Cases Referred
Baran Barai v. Mata Prasad
Reported In
71Ind.Cas.617

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115 - criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 195(6)--sanction to prosecute refused by munsif but given by district judge--revision. - - 3. if these applications which are now before me are to be treated as applications in revision they are governed by the provisions of section 115 of the code of civil procedure and on that footing the learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to satisfy me that the court below has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. the facts in that case were precisely similar to those in the present case. the applications fail and are dismissed with costs to the opposite party.lindsay, j.1. these three applications are directed against an order of the district judge of allahabad granting sanction for the prosecution of the applicants, ram narain, gopi ram and badri prasad, under section 193 of the indian penal code. the proceedings arose out of a civil suit for preemption in which ram narain was a defendant and in which the other two persons, gopi ram and badri prasad, appeared as witnesses.2. application was made to the munsif for sanction to prosecute these three persons. the munsif refused sanction. an application was then made to the district judge under section 195(6) of the code of criminal procedure. the learned district judge has granted the sanction.3. if these applications which are now before me are to be treated as applications in revision they are governed by the provisions of section 115 of the code of civil procedure and on that footing the learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to satisfy me that the court below has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.4. independently of this, however, it has been contended that the applicants have a light to come to this court under the provisions of section 195(6) of the code of criminal procedure. on this point there is the authority of a bench ruling of this court reported as baran barai v. mata prasad 25 ind. cas. 528 : 36 a. 469 : 12 a.l.j. 821 : 15 cr.l.t. 616 that no such application will lie to this court. the facts in that case were precisely similar to those in the present case. the applications fail and are dismissed with costs to the opposite party.

Full Judgment

Lindsay, J.

1. These three applications are directed against an order of the District Judge of Allahabad granting sanction for the prosecution of the applicants, Ram Narain, Gopi Ram and Badri Prasad, under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings arose out of a civil suit for preemption in which Ram Narain was a defendant and in which the other two persons, Gopi Ram and Badri Prasad, appeared as witnesses.

2. Application was made to the Munsif for sanction to prosecute these three persons. The Munsif refused sanction. An application was then made to the District Judge under Section 195(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned District Judge has granted the sanction.

3. If these applications which are now before me are to be treated as applications in revision they are governed by the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on that footing the learned Counsel for the applicants has not been able to satisfy me that the Court below has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

4. Independently of this, however, it has been contended that the applicants have a light to come to this Court under the provisions of Section 195(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On this point there is the authority of a Bench ruling of this Court reported as Baran Barai v. Mata Prasad 25 Ind. Cas. 528 : 36 A. 469 : 12 A.L.J. 821 : 15 Cr.L.T. 616 that no such application will lie to this Court. The facts in that case were precisely similar to those in the present case. The applications fail and are dismissed with costs to the opposite party.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial