P.K. Jain, J.@mdashHeard 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 u/s 409, I.P.C. sanction as required by Section 197(1), Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary.
3. A complaint was filed before the Magistrate to summon the accused (revisionist) u/s 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 u/s 197(1), Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary as the revisionist was admittedly public servant. That application was allowed by the trial court relying upon the case of
4. While allowing the revision, the revisional court relied upon a decision of this Court in Lala 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.
5. The revision is devoid of merit, and is consequently rejected.
