He preferred an appeal against the companyviction and sentences to the Judicial Commissioner of Bhopal.
On February 7, 1956, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bhopal accorded fresh sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner for offences under s. 161, Indian Penal Code, and s. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
On April 4, 1956, the Chief Commissioner of Bhopal passed an order under s. 7 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 No.
General of Police was number valid in law he therefore held that the whole trial was null and void and he companyld number take companynizance of the offences in question.
He then observed The parties would thus be relegated to the position as if numberlegal charge sheet had been submitted against the appellant.
115 of 1956, and Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. These two petitions for the issue of appropriate writs restraining the respondents from prosecuting and trying the two petitioners on certain criminal charges in circumstances to be presently stated, raise the same question of law and have been heard together.
The learned Special Judge by an order dated January 10, 1956, came to the companyclusion that numberlegal sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner had been given by the companypetent authority and the sanction given by the Inspector.
He accordingly set aside the companyviction and quashed the entire proceedings before the Special Judge.
He was prosecuted in the Court of Shri B. K. Puranik, Special Judge, Bhopal, and companyvicted of offences under s. 161, Indian Penal Code, and s. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Baij Nath Prasad Tripathi, petitioner in Petition No.
February 13.
Accordingly he quashed the proceedings.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
The petitioner then moved this Court for appropriate writs restraining the respondents from prosecuting and trying him for the offences stated in the fresh sanction aforesaid.
The case of the petitioner is that he cannot be prosecuted and tried again for the same offences under the aforesaid order of April 4, 1956.
115 of 1956, was a Sub inspector of Police in the then State of Bhopal.
The Judicial Commissioner held by his judGment dated March 7, 1956, that numbersanction according to law had been given for the prosecution of the petitioner and the Special JudGe had numberjurisdiction to take companynizance of the case the trial was accordingly ab initio invalid and liable to be quashed.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, Porus Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents, 1957.
D. Sharma, for the petitioners.
This judgment will govern them both.
Sudhakar Dube, petitioner in Petition No.
XLVI of 1952 that the petitioner shall be tried by Shri S. N. Shri vastava, Special Judge, Bhopal, for certain offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act read with S. 161, Indian Penal Code.
He was sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment on each companynt.
