Sir Edward Maynerd Des Champs Chamier, Kr., C.J.

1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Judge of Saran directing the prosecution of the applicants for offences under sections 209, 210, 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The first applicant Ambica Tewari brought a suit in a Court exercising the powers of a Court of Small Causes against Badri Kandu on the basis of a hand-note said to have been signed by Badri. A decree was passed against Badri in that case ex parte. Badri then brought a suit to have the ex parte decree set aside, on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud and obtained a decree. He then applied to the Court which tried the first-mentioned case for sanction to prosecute Ambica Tewari and a witness in the case named Asarli Tewari. The Court rejected the application. Badri appealed to the District Judge under section 195, sub-section 6, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to revoke the order. The District Judge was of opinion that it was not a case in which sanction should be given as Badri might hold the sanction in terrorem over the heads of Ambica and Asarli and use it for the purpose of extorting money, but he passed an order under section 476 for the prosecution of both men on the charges mentioned above. The present application for revision is made on two grounds, namely, that the District Judge had no authority to entertain an appeal or application against the order sanctioning the prosecution, and, therefore, the matter did not come to his notice in the course of a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and secondly, that it is not a case in which an order should be made for the prosecution of the applicants. I am of opinion that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain either an appeal or an application under section 195, sub-section (6), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I had occasion to consider the construction of sub-sections (6) and (7) in the case of Ajodhia Parshad V. Ram Lal 13 Ind. Cas. 284 : 34 A. 197 : 9 A. L. J. (Sic) : (sic) Cr. L. J. 14. 21 and I adhere to the opinion which I expressed in that case. It seems to me that clause (c) of sub-section (7) of section 195 cannot be construed as if it were an independent sub-section. Apart from this, however, it appears to me that this is certainly not a case in which an order should be made for the prosecution of the applicants. The prosecution cannot succeed except on proof that the hand-note is a forgery. The hand-note is not signed at all but bears a thumb impression said to have been made by Badri. The District Judge has referred to the evidence of experts on the subject. They disagreed with each other and one of them said that the thumb impression was so blurred that he could not express an opinion at all. There seems to be no doubt that the prosecution, if allowed, will end in an acquittal. I would allow the application and set aside the order of the District Judge directing the prosecution of the applicants.

2. Jwala Prasad, J.-- I agree. In my opinion the prosecution should not be sanctioned in this case.

3. Petition allowed; Order set aside.