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.

Emperor Vs. Arjan Pramanik

Emperor vs Arjan Pramanik

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Apr 27, 1904
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/854137

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
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Sanction - Complaint--Assault--Public servant--Resistance to authority of Public Servant--Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) Sections 195, 476--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) Sections 183, 352. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Arjan Pramanik

Legal References

Reported In
(1904)ILR31Cal664

Excerpt

sanction - complaint--assault--public servant--resistance to authority of public servant--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) sections 195, 476--indian penal code (act xlv of 1860) sections 183, 352. - pratt and handley, jj.1. this is an appeal by the local government against an order of the deputy magistrate of pubna dated the 3rd november last, acquitting arjan pramanik and nirjan pramanik. the. deputy magistrate, without considering the case on its merits, acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no sanction as required by law.2. in the first place we may observe that the charges under sections 352 and 353 are not such as require any sanction and as regards the charge under section 183 it is clear on the proceedings of the munsiff, who initiated the prosecution, that he was expressly acting under section 476 of the code of criminal procedure. therefore it was incumbent upon the deputy magistrate under clause (2) of that section to proceed with the case according to law as if upon a complaint made and recorded under section 200.3. we accordingly set aside the order of acquittal in question and send the case back to the deputy magistrate to be disposed of upon the merits.

Full Judgment

Pratt and Handley, JJ.

1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against an order of the Deputy Magistrate of Pubna dated the 3rd November last, acquitting Arjan Pramanik and Nirjan Pramanik. The. Deputy Magistrate, without considering the case on its merits, acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no sanction as required by law.

2. In the first place we may observe that the charges under Sections 352 and 353 are not such as require any sanction and as regards the charge under Section 183 it is clear on the proceedings of the Munsiff, who initiated the prosecution, that he was expressly acting under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore it was incumbent upon the Deputy Magistrate under Clause (2) of that section to proceed with the case according to law as if upon a complaint made and recorded under Section 200.

3. We accordingly set aside the order of acquittal in question and send the case back to the Deputy Magistrate to be disposed of upon the merits.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial