SHANKAR SHETTEPPA CHOUGULE Vs. SHIVAPUTRA SHANKARAPPA SHAIRAKOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petitioner has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 16-6-1982 passed by the J.M.F.C., Hukkeri, on private complaint No. 15/82, whereby he has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused-respondent could not be taken without sanction of the Government as provided under Section 197. Criminal P.C.

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent are councillors of the Town Municipal Council. Sankeshwar, in Hukkeri Taluk. The respondent is also a Chairman of a Standing Committee, consisting of eight members. He owns a land bearing Re. S. No. 372 within the municipal limits. He wanted to construct a building on it and he therefore, got prepared a plan and applied to the municipality to permit him to construct the building. The application made by him for permission, in the usual course, was placed before the Standing Committee of which he was himself the Chairman along with other similar applications for consideration. In the meeting held on 16-12-1981, which was attended by four councillors and presided over by the respondent, the applications were considered and the respondent who was personally interested in the application made by him also, it is alleged, participated in the meeting presided over by him and voted for sanctioning the same. When the matter was taken up before the general body meeting on 26-1-1982 attended by twelve councillors including the respondent, it is stated that the respondent in spite of objections raised by the petitioner participated in the proceedings of the meeting and voted for permitting the construction. Thereafter, on 11-6-1982, the petitioner presented a complaint before the Magistrate against the respondent alleging, inter alia, that the respondent having participated in the meeting had succeeded in getting the permission for construction in violation of the provisions in S. 55(1), Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and he has by this conduct committed the offence punishable under Section 369 of the Act.

(3.) The learned Magistrate being of the view that cognizance of the offence alleged could not be taken without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., after hearing the counsel appearing for the complainant, having dismissed the complaint by his order dated 16-6-1982, the petitioner who is the complainant has preferred this revision under Section 398, Cr.P.C., questioning the legality and correctness of the order made by the Magistrate.