SATYA NARAIN CHAUBE Vs. LAL CHAND OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 o the Consti-tution. In connection with the election to the office of the Pradhan of Gram Sabha Ganeshraipur, pargana Bhadohi, district Varanasi, an election petition No. 10 of 1955 was filed and was being heard by opposite-party No. 1 as an election tribunal. In that election petition the petitioner appeared as a witness and made statement on oath. After the election petition had been decided the opposite-party No. 2 made an application to the election tribunal under Section 479 Cr. P. C. He alleged that the petitioner had committed the offence under Section 193 I. P. C. by making a false statement, on oath and prayed that after an enquiry a complaint be filed against him for that offence. The application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner. He denied that he had made a false statement. He, also contended that the opposite-party No. 1 had no right to proceed under Section 470 Cr. P. C. and file a complaint against him. By his order dated 7-8-1956 the opposite party No. 1 directed that a complaint under Section 193 I. P. C. be lodged in a competent court against the petitioner. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner wants that order of the opposite party No. 1 to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

(2.) When the petition came up before Mr. Justice Dhavan for hearing two main contentions were pressed in support of it. The first was that the opposite party had been constituted as an election tribunal under Section 12-G of the Panchayat Raj Act. Such a tribunal was not a civil, revenue or criminal court which could take action under Section 476 Cr. P. G. In fact, it was not a court at all. The other contention was that Section 476 really stood repealed by Section 479-A Cr. P. C. As while deciding the election petition the tribunal had not itself taken action under Section 479-A of the Code it was not open to it, at the instance of the opposite-party No. 2, to direct that a complaint be filed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 193 I. P. C.

(3.) In support of the second contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Jaibir Singh v. Malkhan Singh, AIR 1958 All 364. For supporting the first contention be relied upon three cases : Kedar Nath v. S. N. Misra, 1957 All LJ 379 : ((S) AIR 1957 All 484) (FB), Mahadeo v. S. D. O. Kunda, 1958 All LJ 274 : (AIR 1959 All 43) and U Aung Myin v. District and Sessions Judge, Henzada, AIR 1940 Rang. 148.