LAWS(MAD)-1970-11-14

V. BALARAMAN Vs. VENKATADRI NAIDU AND OTHERS

Decided On November 02, 1970
V. Balaraman Appellant
V/S
Venkatadri Naidu And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the village headman of Modi Kuppam, a village South Arcot Dist. The first respondent is the president of the Modi Kuppam Panchayat. Respondents 2 and 3 are watchman in Panchayat service and they were staying in a but keeping on over the trees. This not was damaged by fire on the 24th March, 1969. On the information given by respondents 2 and 3, the first respondent sent to F -1 report to the commissioner, attributing at area on the petitioner and three others. The letter forwarded it to the police for investigation. P.W. 3, the Sub -Inspector, investigated the crime, and referred the report as false on 2nd May 1969. The petitioner then filed a complaint in court against the respondents for an offence under S. 211, I. P. C. He as P.W. 2 deposed that the complaint against him was false. P.W. I, the Commissioner, spoke to his forwarding Ex. P. I report to the Sub -Inspector P.W. 3. The letter gave evidence a about his investigation and to his referring the case as false. When questioned in court, the first respondent stated that he merely brought it to the notice of the Commissioner and that he never intended to take criminal action against the petitioner. The Sub -Magistrate who tried the case, discharged the respondents, holding that the petitioner had not proved that the charge was false. The Sessions judge at Vellore confirmed this decision in revision. The petitioner contends that this order is erroneous.

(2.) THE main point argued by the first respondent is that even if the association is false, there can be no conviction under S. 211 I. P. C. as all that was, done in this case was to send a report to the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union in the discharge of his duties and he had not sent it with intent to set the criminal law in motion. S. 211, I. P. C, runs as follows:

(3.) THE courts below have correctly held that the respondents could not be convicted under S. 211, 1. P. C. The revision fails and the same is dismissed.