AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 224 wordsStraight, Offg. C.J.
I am glad that the learned Judge has reported this case, because it has afforded me an opportunity of considering my ruling in the case of Queen-Empress v. Radha Kishan ILR All. 36. Upon further consideration I have come to the conclusion that the latter portion of my judgment in that case was erroneous, and that a prosecution u/s 182 of the Penal Code may be instituted by a private person, provided that he first obtains the sanction of the public officer to whom the false information was given, or of his official superior. I am induced to adopt this altered view upon closer consideration of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where a distinction is drawn between "sanction" and "complaint" and I think that by the use of the former word it was contemplated that a prosecution may emanate from some person other than the officer interested. Though I take this view of the matter now, it would in no way have altered the order I made in Queen-Empress v. Radha Kishan ILR All. 36 had I held it when that was passed, as, in my opinion, when a specific false charge is made, as in that case, the proper section for proceedings to be adopted under is Section 211. With these remarks the record may be returned.