1. In these two cases a somewhat important point arises as to the power of the District Judge to convert proceedings to obtain or to revoke sanction, refused or granted in a lower Court under S. 195, into proceedings under S. 476. There seems to have been in the earlier rulings of the Allahabad High Court an impression that proceedings under S. 195 were not judicial proceedings, and that the District Judge would be acting without jurisdiction in taking action in such proceedings under S. 476. But these doubts seem to me to have been completely set at rest in the case of Chadammi v. Lalta Prasad(1) and still more 30 by the very full discussion of the question by Mukerjee and Carnduff, JJ., in Bala Pasban Kuldip Lal v. Gurwar Misser(2). I entirely agree with the reasoning set out in the latter case, and I am satisfied that when a case of perjury or forgery is brought to the notice of the District Court under S. 195, that Court has the power to convert the proceedings and take action under S. 476.
2. The applications are accordingly rejected.
V.S/R.K
3. Applications rejected.