LAWS(KAR)-1973-10-3

N HUCHMASTHI GOWDA Vs. JAMMADA AIYAPPA

Decided On October 10, 1973
N.HUCHMASTHI GOWDA Appellant
V/S
JAMMADA AIYAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 in CrlRP.98 of 1973 is the Revenue Minister of Mysore, and Petitioner No.2 is the Deputy Commissioner of Mercara, and Petitioner No.3 is the Superintendent of Police, Coorg. Petitioner No.1 in CrlRP.104 of 1973 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coorg, and Petitioner No.2 is the Sub-Inspsctor of Police, Ponnampet. In these revision petitions the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Principal Munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Virajpet issuing summons against them for answering charges under S.447 and S.427 read with S.34 IPC.

(2.) Respondent No.1 in these petitions filed a complaint against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in CrlRP.98 of 1973 alleging that on 25-10- 1972, the petitioners along with the other accused, trespassed into his land S.No.68/ 30 and 7316 at Kaikeri village and committed mischief by destroying the fenqe and coffee plants put up by him. Respondent No. 1 also filed a second complaint dt.5-11-1972 against petitioners 1 and 2 and other accused in CrlRP.104/73 alleging that they trespassed into his land and removed the fence and destroyed the coffee plants which he had again put up. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant in both the cases, the learned Magistrate called for a Deport from the Deputy Inspector General of Police in both the cases. After the receipt of the report, the learned Magistrate held that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners and issued summons to them These orders of issuing summons against the petitioners have been challenged by them in these revision, petitions. As the same point, whether the sanction of the Government is necessary before instituting the proceedings against the petitioners is raised in both the petitions, they are heard together and one common order is passed.

(3.) The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that there is no dispute that the petitioners are public servants. There is also no dispute that Sec. 197 is applicable to a Minister and Counsel for respondent aas conceded this. Before initiating proceedings against them, as they have acted in the discharge of their official duty, sanction of the Government is necessary. He argues that the petitioners are entitled to the protection which S.197 CrlPC and S.170 of the Mysore Police Act,, 1963, and S.196 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act of 1964 gives them, and these provisions bar the instiution of proceedings against the petitioners. It is argued that the report of the DIG called for by the Court under S. 202 CrPC., clearly shows that the public road called Vokkaligara Gudde road passes through the complainant land. This road has been used by the members of the public for over a decade. This road is also shown in the village map of 1930. It is clear from the report of the DIG that the village Panchayat has been spending money on this road. The residents of that locality had no access to their homes except through this road. The members of the public had complained about the blocking of the public road by the complainant, to the officials. When the first petitioner, the Revenue Minister visited that place, the members of the public complained to him about the blocking of this public road. The Minister thereafter went to the scene with petitioners 2 and 3 and some others and after the Deputy Commissioner had held a local inquiry at the spot, he issued directions for the Removal of the obstruction on the public road. As a Minister is a public servant, and when any grievance of an obstruction to a public road is brought to his notice, it is his duty to act. Attention is invited to S.3 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act which will be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', wherein it is stated that the State Government shall be the chief controlling authority in all the matters connected with the land, and land revenue administration under this Act. Petitioner No.l being the Revenue Minister has to act on behalf of the State. As petitioners were public servants, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties, sanction of the Government is necessary ber fore proceedings could be initiated against them. It is argued, that the view taken by the learned Magistrate that whether the petitioners were acting or purporting to act as public servants has to be decided later on at the time of the evidence, is erroneous. The question whether sanction is necessary or not has to be decided first. The absence of sanction is a bar to the jurisdiction of the Court and unless this point is decided, the Court cannot proceed with the case against the petitioners. Strong reliance is placed by the learned Advocate General on Ramayya v. State of Bom.., AIR. 1955 SC. 287, Amtik Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR. 1955 SC. 309, Matajog v. Bhar, AIR. 1956 SC. 44, Srivastava v. Mishra, AIR. 1970 SC. 1661, Siddiah v. State of Mysore, (1965) 1 Mys.L.J. 647 and (1973) 1 Myn.L.J. 306, (1973) 1 Mys.L.J. 306 in support of his contentions.