Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ1005
Mohamed Ahmed Ansari, J.1. The question to be adjudicated in this revision petition is: When sanction for the prosecution of a public servant is necessary under Section 201 of the Hyderabad Criminal P.C.? The section provided that when any public servant was accused as such of any offence, no Court should take cognizance of it except with the previous sanction of the Government. This Hyderabad section was similar to the old Section 197 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, for there was nothing in it corresponding to the words 'while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty', which were introduced in the newly drafted Section 197 of the Indian Code by the Amending Act No. XVIII of 1923. These new words in Section 197 have been interpreted by the Privy Council in several recent cases and we thought it advisable, when hearing the petition in the Division Bench, to refer the case to the Full Bench in order that some of the authorities of our Court may be examined in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ1297
ORDER1. This writ is directed against the order purporting to be made by the Collector, Hyderabad District. Among other grounds the learned Vakil contends before us that there is a flaw in this order because the arguments in the case were heard by the Additional Collector and the actual order was passed by the Collector. We are of opinion that this argument has force. It is an accepted principle of law that it is only that authority who can pass the final order who hears the argument. There is no procedure of one authority hearing the case and expressing his opinion and sending it for formal sanction by a higher authority. Such a procedure may probably be prevalent and in force on the executive or the administrative side but not at any rate on the judicial side. We, therefore quash the order dated the 23rd July 1951 under consideration and send the case back to the Collector with directions to hear the arguments of the parties and dispose of the same according to law. Costs of this pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ1299
Srinivasachari, J.1. This is a revision against the order of District Judge, Asifabad. The brief facts relating to this case are that the petitioner before us filed a complaint against an employee of the Forest Department charging him with (a) criminal trespass, (b) insult, (c) theft, and (d) assault. The complainant alleged that the forest employee entered his house without permission and asked him to stop some wood work that was going on in his house and when he refused to do so forcibly carried away all the timber that was there and also some 'Kadvi' meant for the cattle in his house. The accused pleaded that he was a Government servant and the offences said to have been committed by him happened to be in the discharge of his official duties and therefore the case could not go on unless the requisite sanction required by Section 201, Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code: Section 197, Indian Criminal Procedure Code was obtained.The lower Court dismissed the complaints holding that the p...
Tag this Judgment!