P.K.Jain - (1.) HEARD Sri Raghuraj Kishore, holding brief of Sri S. K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
(2.) SHORT question raised in this revision is whether while prosecuting a Gram Pradhan for commission of an offence under Section 409, I.P.C. sanction as required by Section 197 (1), Cr. P.C. was necessary. A complaint was filed before the Magistrate to summon the accused (revisionist) under Section 409, I.P.C. A revision appears to have been preferred against the summoning order before the Sessions Judge, being Criminal Revision No. 350 of 1986 which was dismissed vide order dated 21.8.86. Thereafter, the revisionist moved an application before the trial court claiming that sanction under Section 197 (1), Cr. P.C. was necessary as the revisionist was admittedly public servant. That application was allowed by the trial court relying upon the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Nand Lal 1983 Cr LJ 1896. The complainant filed revision before the Sessions Judge, being Criminal Revision No. 456 of 1988 which was allowed by the find Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur vide Judgment and order dated 13.1.89. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision. While allowing the revision, the revisional court relied upon a decision of this Court in Lata Ram v. State of U. P., 1961 ALJ 376 and the Court held that the trial court has wrongly given precedence to the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Nand Lal (supra) over the case of Lala Ram decided by this Court which has not been over-ruled. Learned counsel contends that the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh was a latter one and should have been relied upon by the revisional court. The argument is misconceived. Law laid down by this Court shall have to be given precedence by the subordinate courts over the law laid down by other High Courts.
(3.) THE revision is devoid of merit, and is consequently rejected.;