GOUR CHANDRA ROUT & ANOTHER versus THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CUTTACK

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 23-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
447 
diction to assess the tax on account of the invalidity 
of the rule under which the tax was assessed. 
We therefore allow this petition with costs 
holding the impugned rule 16 (2) invalid and order 
the is.,ue of a writ of mandamus to the State of 
Madras and the Sales Tax Authorities under the Act 
to refrain from enforcing any of the provisions of 
r. 16 (2) and direct them to refund the tax illegally 
collceted from the petitioner. 
Petition Allowed. 
GOUR CHANDRA ROUT & ANOTHER 
ti. 
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CUTT ACK 
(S. J. buv, K. SUBBA RAo, N. R.uAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Oriminal Proadurt-Aulkoriaation by GotJtmM Gtntral-
AulhMi•<Jtion, whetAor contemp/4ted-Ootl.e of Oriminal Procedure 
1898 (V of 1898), "" <Jmttuktl by Oriminal Procedure Ood« 
(A,,..ndmtnt) Act, 1955(XXVI of 1955), a. 198-B(l), (3)(1l). 
The appellann were the editor, printer and publisher of 
an Oriya Daily Newspaper called "Matrubhumi". In the issue 
of May 31, 1958, the views expressed by Dr. Ram Manohar 
Lohia concerning the Political situation created in Orissa by 
reason of the resignation of the Congress Ministry and its 
immediate non-acceptance by the Governor were published. 
During the Press Conference he remarked that the Governor had 
played as a toy in the hands of the ·Congress and that his one 
near relation had secured employment with the help of the 
congress party. After it came to the notice of the Governor, 
he got it translated into· English and sent to the Government 
for taking such action as may be necessary. Shortly thereafter, 
the Home Secretary to the Government passed an order pur• 
ported to be a sanction under s. 1988 of the Code of Criminal 
Fi"" A.T.B. M1ft. 
r.6 Majid •' C•. 
y, 
Sl•t. of M•dr.s 
Ratlwbar D•Jdl, J. 
1962 
N_,,,., 13. 
1962 
Gvur Cllantlr•·Rnt 
v •. 
Pu6lic P1os1a 
eutor, C1111.c• 
448, SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP. 
Procedure , for the prosecution of the appellants . for oft'ences 
under ss. 500 and 501 of the Penal Code and in pursuance 
thereof the Ptibli o Prosecutor lodged a complaint on the basis 
of which the appellants were tried by the SessionsJudge who 
held both of them guilty to the charge, convicted them of these 
oft'enocs and sentenced them to pay certain lines · and their 
appeals to the High Court were ,also dismissed. It was urged 
by the respondent i11 this .Court that .it was enough for the 
Governor to say that he had 'no 'objection to the lodging of a 
complaint and his statement ·that he left it to the Ccivernmerit 
to decide what action should be taken and that the •Government 
had consulted him before it decided to take action, therefore, 
meets the requirements of the provisions of cl. (a) of sub-s.(3} of 
s. l 98B, Code of Criminal Procedure. 
Held, thats. 19S-B(3}(a} requires that the Governor should 
authorise a Secretary to lodge a complaint. Held, also, that 
there are two restrictiom upon the power of the Public Pro-
accutor to lodge a complaint (1) he must first obtain a sanction 
to lodge such complaint; (2) and the sanction •hould be 
accorded by a Secretary to the Government authorised by the 
Governor in this behalf. While the sanctioning authority has 
to apply its mind before according sanction and in performing 
the function the Secretary does not merely perform a minis· 
terial Act, the initiative has to be taken by the Governor by 
indicating unequivocally that he desires action to be taken and 
that the authorisation by him is not an idle formality. 
Held, further, that sub.s. (3) of s. 191l-B speaks of a 
complaint under sub-s. (1) and the complaint under •ub-s. (I) 
is a specific complaint in writing made by the Public Pro-
secutor. Reading the two sub-sections together it would be 
clear that the authorisation by the Governor is of the sanction 
with respect to a specific complaint. A KCneral smction will 
not be of any avail. 
Gour Chandra Rom v. Public Proaecu.tor, A. I. R. 1960 
Orissa 116, held inapplicable. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 61of1960. 
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated 
August 7, 1961, of the Orissa High Court in Criminal 
Appeal No. 108/60. 
SanfA:Jsh Chatterjee and Brij Bans Kialwre, for 
the appellants. 
-
-
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
449 
D. R. Prem, P. D. Menan and R. H. Dhebar, 
for the respondent. 
1962. November 23. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
MuDHOLKAR, J.-This is an appeal by a certi· 
ficate granted by th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.