AMIRINENI CHENCHAIAH Vs. T V ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the Order of the District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.R.P. 'No. 14 of 1959 on his file. The relevant facts are briefly as follows :- On Amirineni Chenchaiah filed a complaint in C.C. No. 435 of 1958 against three accused complaining of various offences. The first accused was the President of the Vcmuru Panchayat Board. The second accused was a clerk of the Panchayat Board. The third accused was a contractor and a close associate of the first accused. He was not officially connected with the Panchayat Board. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that he was a recognised contractor of the Panchayat, that the first accused, in his capacity as President, Panchayat Board, did the following acts :- (1) The first accused destroyed a tender form which the complainant put in. (2) The first accused falsified the books of the Panchayat Board by introducing another tender form in favour of the third accused. (3) The first accused (who was also the Executive Officer in charge) in conspiracy with the second accused attempted to manipulate a resolution and issued a cheque for Rs. 1,266 in favour of the third accused. The second and third accused were charged as abettors. The complainant filed the complaint before the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Tenali.

(2.) The latter took the complaint on file under section 477-A, Indian Penal Code, read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, against the above three accused. The complainant mentioned in his sworn statement that the Panchayat Board members told in him that A-1 and A-2 had destroyed the tender form and manipulated the records. So, the learned Magistrate issued summons to all the accused. On behalf of the first accused, a petition was filed that cognizance should not have been taken of the complaint as there was no previous sanction as contemplated under section 106 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to for convenience as the 'Act'). Another petition was filed on behalf of the second accused under section 107 of the Act. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both sides, dismissed the complaint altogether as against all the three accused. The complainant took the matter in revision before the Sessions Judge, Guntur.

(3.) The latter held that the complaint could not be entertained (because of want of previous sanction as contemplated under section 106 of the Act) only so far as the first accused was concerned but tnat the complaint as regards the second and third accused was not barred. Acordingly, the learned Sessions Judge allowed Crl.R. P. No. 14 of 1959 so far as the second and third accused were concerned and dismissed the revision petition as regards the first accused. Thereupon, the complainant filed this revision petition in this Court so far as the first accused is concerned. The sole point for decision in this case is whether the complaint as against the first accused is barred for want of previous sanction under section 106 of the Act. Section 106 of the Act reads :