VEERABHADRAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this revision petition is whether a revision application under S.435, Cr.P.C. is maintainable in respect of an order xnade by the Tahsildar, under S. 78 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act 1964 describing himself as Taluka-Magistrate.

(2.) It is contended by Sri K.V.Lakshminarasimhan, Advocate for petitioners, that the Tahsildar being a Magistrate under S.6(a) of Crl.P.C., the order passed by him is one revisable by this court under S.435 Cr.P.C. As could be gathered from the records, the proceedings are initiated at the instance of the police before the Tahsildar-Magistrate under S. 78 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964 which reads as follows:

(3.) Although the proceedings are taken under S. 78 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, it is contended by Sri Lakshminarasimhan, that the Tahsildar having described himself as Taluka-Magistrate according to him, the Taluka-Magistrate being one of the Magistrates subordinate to this court, the order passed by him is revisable under S. 435 Cr.P.C. Looking into the provisions of S. 78 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, it is clear that the proceedings initiated before the Taluka-Magistrate are proceedings essentially taken under the Mysore Land Revenue Act. The mere description while signing the order as Taluka-Magistrate cannot be taken to mean that he was exercising the power under the Crl.P.C. If at all, this would at best be a proceeding under the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Act. But, by no stretch of imagination, could it be stated that he was exercising his power as a Taluka-Magistrate. Whatever may be the character of the proceedings it is obvious from the proceedings that the Tahsildar was exercising his authority under the Mysore Land Revenue Act, but at any rate not under the Crl.P.C. He cannot, therefore, be regarded as an inferior Criminal Court. The remedy open to the petitioners is provided in the Mysore Land Revenue Act itself by way of appeal or revision. That being so, no revision against the order is maintainable under S. 435 Cr.P.C. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed.