JUDGMENT
1. We are asked in these cases to set aside an order of the District Judge of Muzifferpur declining to interfere in a case decided by the Munsif of Motihari refusing to grant sanction to prosecute a plaintiff for offences under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code. The main facts of the case are that this plaintiff brought a suit against certain tenants of whom, it is alleged, the other two persons against whom these applications were made were Maliks. It is alleged that out of old enmity the Maliks had arranged with this plaintiff to bring a false civil action against these tenants. On the case coming to trial, the Munsif after the usual adjournments was asked to allow it be withdrawn with power to bring a fresh suit. Nothing further was done for six and a half months, when the defendants in the suit with the advice and the assistance of the Criminal Investigation Department made the applications referred to. The Munsif, on the ground that the applications were made six and a half months late and on the ground that there were no materials before him to justify in saying that the case was false, refused the applications and recorded a finding that they were made merely in order to harrass the plaintiff and the Malika. He had no materials whatever before him for the latter view, and the delay in bringing the case had been the subject of a full explanation in the application made. This application the Munsif entirely declined to consider. On his refusal of the applications the parties went to the District Judge. The District Judge recorded that he had no power to make any order on the matter, because there was no material before him on which he could ascertain the facts. It had been held “both in Allahabad and Madras and has since been held in Calcutta in Budhu Lal v, Chattu Gope 39 Ind. Cas. 465 : 21 C.W.N. 269 : 25 C.L.J. 193 : 44 C. 816 : 18 Cr. L.J. 497 that the Court before whom an application somes under Section 195, Clause (6), for re consideration of orders passed by a Subordinate Court had no power to remand the case for further enquiry The applicant, therefore, comes to us under Section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, with a prayer that the orders either of the Munsif or of the District Court be revised and that an enquiry be held into the matters alleged in the application made before the Munsif for sanction to prosecute. We have considered carefully the view taken in the case reported as Budhu Lal v. Chattu Gope 39 Ind. Cas. 465 : 21 C.W.N. 269 : 25 C.L.J. 193 : 44 C. 816 : 18 Cr. L.J. 497, and we note the procedure therein taken was that a Court was constituted before whom the proceedings contemplated under Section 195, Clause (6), should be conducted. That Court having been constituted, it was directed to take evidence upon the merits of the case. We agree with the whole trend of case-law that the Court to which appeals lie has no power under Section 195, Clause (6), to remand the case for farther enquiry. We also agree that it must have inherent power, as said by Mukerjee, J, to collect materials upon which its decision may be based. In this view we are of opinion that the learned Judge acted erroneously in the exercise of his jurisdiction in refusing to take further action in the matter. He had jurisdiction to make an enquiry himself and we direct him now to exercise that jurisdiction in accordance with law. He will take such evidence as the parties may desire to adduce before him, and on consideration of that evidence pass such orders as he may think proper under Section 195, Clause (6). We do not propose to make any orders as to costs.