JUDGMENT
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.
1. These are three connected first appeals which raise substantially one single point. An application under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of sanction to institute certain prosecutions for the offence of giving false evidence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code was made in the court of the Munsif of Gorakhpur city and was dismissed by him. The party applying for sanction carried the matter to the court of the District Judge, as he was entitled to do, under Clause (6), Section 195, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the result that the District Judge passed an order granting the sanction. The parties against whom the sanction was granted have filed these three connected appeals in this Court. A preliminary objection is taken that under the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aforesaid it was not intended that the question of granting or withholding a sanction should be carried to a third court. There is clear authority of a bench of this Court in support of this objection in the case of Kanhai Lal v. Chhadammi Lal (1) I.L.R. 31 All. 48. where the facts were precisely similar to those of the case now before us. We have been asked to reconsider this ruling both with reference to the decision of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Muthuswami Mudali v. Veeni Chetti (2) (1907) I. L. R. 30 Mad. 382. and to other cases referred to in the abovementioned ruling of this Court. So far as we are aware the reported decision of this Court has never been dissented from and has been accepted in this Court for the last five or six years. On the principle of stare decisis we do not think it expedient to reconsider that decision, or the arguments on which it was based. We hold accordingly that no appeal lies to this Court against the orders complained of and we dismiss each of the three appeals now before us with costs.
