A. Narasimhayya of Bidamannur vs A. Venkatasawmi and Others

A case of theft was reported to a Village Munsif who sent the usual reports to the Police and the Sub-Magistrate. The police submitted a

referred charge sheet and asked the, Sub-Magistrate for sanction to prosecute the complainant. The Sub-Magistrate sanctioned the prosecution of

the complainant for an offence u/s 182, I.P.C.

u/s 195(a), Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence u/s 182, I.P.C., except with the previous sanction or on the complaint of the

public servant concerned or of some public servant to whom he is subordinate. In the present case the public servant concerned was the Village

Munsif, and he took no action. The sanction granted by the Sub-Magistrate will, therefore, be a good sanction only if the Village Munsif is

subordinate to the Magistrate. Our attention has been drawn to Regina v. Periannan and Narain ILR (1881) M. 241.

There, one of the grounds on which the sanction was submitted to be illegal was that the Sub-Magistrate had no power to give sanction as he

was not the public servant to whom the information was given. In dealing with this the learned Judges re-marked as follows: We think all was done

that was necessary. The public servant himself complained, which is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the section, and if it were not so, the

Village-Magistrate may be said to be subordinate to the 2nd Class Magistrate, and the sanction of the 2nd Class Magistrate would be sufficient.

That case is not exactly on all fours with the present case, in as much as a complaint seems to have been made by the Village Magistrate to whom

the information was given. It was, therefore, unnecessary to decide in that case whether the Village Magistrate was or was not subordinate to the

Sub-Magistrate, and no reasons were given for the opinion that the Village Magistrate may be said to be subordinate to the Second class

Magistrate. The subordination of one public servant to another may arise either from express enactment or from the fact that both public servants

belong to the same department, one being superior in rank to the other. We are not aware of any enactment which makes Village Munsifs

subordinate to the Sub-Magistrates. The Criminal Procedure Code does not do so, nor do Regulations XI of 1816 and IV of 181. Village Munsifs

and Sub-Magistrates do act belong to the same department. We are unable, therefore, to see how Village Muisifs can be said to be subordinate to

Sub-Magistrates. We, therefore, revoke the sanction granted by the Sub-Magistrate in the present case.