JUDGMENT Prinsep and Stephen, JJ. - We think that the reasons given by the Lower Courts for refusing sanction to the Petitioner to prosecute the Defendants in a suit brought by him for forgery are not sound. They have refused sanction on the ground that the bonds, which are denounced as forgeries, were only tendered in evidence and were not judicially considered by the Court. Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, has, however, been amended by the law of 1898 so as to meet this very point, and therefore, if this were the only objection taken, we should have felt inclined to give the Petitioner a Rule. But it seems to us that this is not a proper case in which sanction should be given. The Petitioner sued certain persons for money borrowed from him. The Defendants denied the debt and pleaded that not only did they never borrow any money from the Plaintiff, but that the Plaintiff was indebted to them, as was shown by the bonds which they produced. At the trial the second point was not tried because it was thought unnecessary, inasmuch as the Court found against the Plaintiff on the first point, holding that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that the Defendants ever borrowed money from him. Now, if sanction were given to prosecute the Defendants in this case for bonds said to be a forgeries, it would be necessary, before sanction could be given, for the Court to see whether there were prima facie good grounds for holding criminal proceedings. But any such inquiry would have the effect of prejudicing the Defendants in any suit that they might wish to bring to recover money due on the bonds which they tendered in the suit brought against them and there is at present no reason to suppose that the bonds are not true and genuine instruments. That is a matter which should be left to be determined hereafter, possibly in a civil suit between the two parties and it would be premature to refer such a matter to the Criminal Court for decision. 2. The application is accordingly refused.