RAMESHWAR BHARTIA versus THE STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 23-10-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Oct. 29 
126 
~UPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1953] 
RAMESHW AR BHAR'l1IA 
• 
v. 
THE S'fATE OF ASSAM 
[CHANDHASEKHAHA ArYAll and BHAGWATI JJ.] 
Criminal Procednre C~de (V of J 898), "· 556~-" Per,01iall11 
interested", rneanina of-0.tficer giving sa11.ction to prosecute, whethe1' 
disquali.fied froni trying the case-Di.(fcrencc bettveen sanction to 
prosecute and dh·cction to prosec1tte. 
"' 
Tbe question whether a 1fagistrate is "personally interested" 
iu a case within the rneaning of s. 556, Crirninal Procedure Code, 
has essentially to be decided on the facts of each case. 
· 
· 
Where an officer as a District Magistrate exetcis1ng his 
powers under s. 7(1) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) 
1\ct, 1946, sanctioned the prosecution of a person for violation of 
ss. 3 and 7 of the Assam Food Grairis Control Order, 1947, and 
the same officer as Additiona1 District Th.iagistrate tried a.ncl con-
victed the accused, and it was contended that as the officer had 
given sa.nction for prosecution he \Vas "personally interested" in the 
case within the meaning of s. 556, Criminal P1·ocedure Code, and 
the trial and conviction were therefore illegal: Held, that by 
merely giving sanction for prosecution he did not become "person-
a.lly interested" in the case and the trial and conviction were not 
illeg~l. 
In both cases of sanction and direction to prosecute, an appli-
cation of the mind is necessary, but there is this essential differ-
ence that in the one case there is a legal impediment to the prosecu-
tion if there is no sanction and in the other case th.ere is a positive 
order that the prosecution should be launched. For a sanction, 
all that is necessary for one to be satisfied about is the existence 
of a prima facie case. In the case of a direction, a further element 
that the accused deserves to be prosecuted is involved. 
Whether 
sanction should be granted or not may conceivably depend on con-
siderations extraneous to the merits of the case. 
But where a 
prosecution is directed, it means that the authority who gives the 
sanction is satisfied in his own mind that the case mtlst he initiated. 
Sanction is in the nature of a permission, while direction is in the 
nature of a command. 
• 
Gokulchand Dwarka Das v. The King (1948) 52 C.W.N. 325, 
Government of Bengal v. Heera Lall Dass and Others (1872) 17 
W. R. Cr. 39, Queen Empress v. Chenchi Reddi (1901) I.L.R. 24 
Mad. 238, Girish Chunder v. Queen Empress (1893) I.L.R. 20 Cal. 
857, and Emperor v. Ravji (1903) 5 Born. L.R. 542, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE 
JURISDIC'i'ION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 40 of 1951, 
... 
8.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
127 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 
1st June, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature in 
Assam (Thadani C.J. and Ram Labhaya l.) in. Cri-
minal Reference No. 1 of 1951, arising out of 
Judgment and Order dated the 15th November, 1950, 
of the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, 
Lakhimpur, in Case No. 1126C of 1950. 
Jindra Lal for the appellant. 
Nur1tddin Ahmed for the respondent . 
1952. 
October 23. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
CHANDRASEKHAHA A-IYAH J.-Rameshwar Bhartia, 
the appellant, is a shopkeeper. in Assam. 
He was 
prosecuted for storing paddy without a licence in 
excess of the quantity permitted by the Assam Food 
Grains Control Order, 1947. He admitted storage and 
possession of 550 maunds of paddy, but pleaded that 
he did not know that any licence was necessary. The 
Additional District Magistrate recorded a plea of 
guilty, but imposed on him a fine of Rs. 50 only, as he 
considered his ignorance of the provisions of the Food 
Grains Control Order to be genuine. 
The stock of 
paddy was left in the possession of the appellant by 
the Procurement Inspector under a Jimnianama or 
security bond executed in his favour. 
He was sub-
sequently unable to produce it before the court, as 
the whole of it was taken away by a Congress M.L.A. 
for affording relief to those who suffered in the earth-
quake, and so, the appellant was ordered to procure a 
similar. quantity of paddy after taking an appropriate 
licence, and to make over the same to the procure-
ment department on payment of the price. 
The District Magistrate, on being moved to do so 
by the procurement department, referred the case to 
the High Court under section 438, Criminal Pro-
cedure Code, for enhancement of the sentence, as in 
his opinion the sentence was unduly lenient and the 
Jimmanarrui
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.