JUDGMENT P.L. Bhargava, J. - Ram Prasad has been convicted by the Bench Magistrates of Bharthana in the district Etawah for an offence punishable u/s 498 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 or, in default of payment of fine, to undergo a further term of two weeks rigorous imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction and sentence, but without any success. He has now come up to this court in revision. 2. The case against the applicant was started on a complaint filed, on October 13,1948, by Dwarka Prasad, the father of the married woman, named Bindu, who had been enticed away. The com plaint appears to have been transferred to the Bench Magistrates, who on October 16. 1948, examined . the complainant u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and then adjourned the case to November 17, 1948, for enquiry u/s 202 of the Code. An application for obtaining leave of the court, as required u/s 19y of the Code was written out on November 17,1948 ; but as the case could not be taken up on that date for want of time, the application was presented on the next date of hearing, viz,, December 1, 1918 when the leave was granted Then, the Magistrate seems to have made the inquiry and the applicant was summoned. Thereafter the trial proceeded and it was found that the applicant had enticed away Bindu, knowing that she was the wife of another person, for immoral purposes Accordingly, the applicant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. In this revision, two points have been raised. 4. Firstly, it has been contended that as the Bench Magistrates had taken cognizance of the offence on October 16, 1948, upon a complaint filed by a person other than the husband of the woman without obtaining leave of the court, the trial was vitiated. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the same principle, which is applicable to cases where previous sanction is necessary to enable the court to take cognizance of an offence, would also apply to a case where the court is precluded from taking cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint filed with the leave of the court. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the same principle, which is applicable to cases where previous sanction is necessary to enable the court to take cognizance of an offence, would also apply to a case where the court is precluded from taking cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint filed with the leave of the court. The two cases, however, cannot be placed on the same footing, because in the former case, the sanction of some authority other than the court taking cognizance of the offence is required and it must be obtained before the court takes cognizance of the offense-In the latter case, the leave has to be granted by the same court which is to take cognizance of the offence. In such a case when the court entertains the complaint, the leave to file the complaint may be implied or presumed. 5. Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not lay down that the leave should be asked for and given in writing ; the complainant may ask for it and it may be given orally. The object of the restriction imposed by this section is to prevent any and every person from filing a complaint, containing such allegations against a married woman as constitute an offence u/s 497 or 498 I.P.C. Where as in the present case, the complainant is the father, he files the complaint which is entertained by the court the fact that the complainant is not the husband of the woman is disclosed in the complaint as well as in the statement made before the court, and the court allows him to produce evidence u/s 202 of the Code and grants him leave as soon as it is asked for, the leave of the court is implied and may be presumed. 6. Consequently, in the circumstances of the present case, the leave of the court must be presumed Apart from it, the leave having been obtained and given at the earliest opportunity-before the summons was issued to the applicant-the omission to formally obtain the leave at the time of the filing of the complaint did not. in any way prejudice the applicant- I am, therefore, not prepared to hold that the trial in this case was vitiated. 7. in any way prejudice the applicant- I am, therefore, not prepared to hold that the trial in this case was vitiated. 7. Secondly, it has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the woman being related to the applicant, there was no evidence of criminal intention of the nature attributed to him- The applicant, no doubt, described himself as the cousin of the father of the woman, but it is not known whether he is really his cousin, and if so, how many degrees removed. It has been found by the courts below that the applicant enticed away the woman while she was on a visit to her father and denied having done so. The intention had to be gathered from his conduct, which does support the prosecution case. 8. I, therefore, see no force in this revision and reject it. The applicant, who is on bail, will surrender immediately to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence.