J V KRISHNAIAH Vs. SUB COLLECTOR GUDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Full Bench has been formed to consider the Constitutional validity of Sections 5(2) and 13 of the Madras Revenue Malversation Regulation (Madras Regulation DC of 1822) (hereinafter called "the Regulation") as offending Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 21 and 22 of the Constitution A Bench of the Madras High Court, consisting of Rama-krishnan and Sadasivani, JJ., had, in Srinivasa Iyer v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli, 1966-1 Mad L) 459, held the aforesaid provisions as offending Article 14 of the Constitution and had struck them down. The correctness of that decision having been challenged by the learned Government Pleader before two of us (namely Basi Reddy and Anantanarayana Ayyar, JJ.) these three petitions have been directed to be posted before a Full Bench, as the issues insolved are of great public importance.

(2.) In Crl. M. P. No. 1740/1965, the petitioner is a village munsif of Biradavada group of villages in Nellore District. The Revenue Divisional Officer Gudur, gave a notice to the petitioner on 23-7-1985, alleging that the petitioner had embezzled two amounts of Rs. 8,909-87 and 7,229-82, paid to him in respect of land revenue and loans, and misappropriated by him, that out of these amounts, only a sum of Rs. 1,800 was paid by him and that the balance of Rs. 14,339-19 is still to be paid. The petitioner was therefore asked to show cause before 23-8-1965 as to why the amount should not be recovered under the regulation, The petitioner avers that as directed in the notice, he appeared on 23-8-1965 and sought permission to examine the records and in Re. E. No. 7079/63 dated 2-9-1965, the Revenue Divisional Officer granted the permission. After examining the records, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 9-9-1965. Again on 15-9-1965 the petitioner appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer and gave a written representation saying that he ad no witnesses to be examined and there was nothing to be added to the explanation submitted on 9-9-1965. On 12-10-1965, at about 6 P. M., when he was at Nayudupeta Bus stand, having then returned by bus from Kalahasti, where he had been three days earlier, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was there in a jeep asked the petitioner to follow him and confined him in the sub-jail, stating that unless he paid Rs. 14,339-19 and fine of Rs. 500.00, he would not be released

(3.) The Sub-Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer), Gudur, in his counter-affidavit; while admitting that for the recovery of the two amounts of Rs. 8909-37 and 7229-82, collected by the petitioner as land-revenue loans respectively, steps were taken under the regulation and that tie issued a notice dated 23-7-1965, in exercise of the powers delegated to him by the Collector, calling the petitioner to attend an enquiry proposed to be conducted on 23-8-1965, further stated that the petitioner appeared on that day and in his presence, 71 persons, who attended the enquiry gave evidence to the effect that the petitioner had collected moneys from them towards loans and land-revenue after issuing receipts and had also filed the receipts as exhibits in the enquiry; that the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, but the petitioner did not choose to cross-examine them, that he was given an opportunity to peruse the receipts filed as exhibits and the evidence given by the 71 persons, but the petitioner asked for time for verification, for which purpose he attended the office on 29-8-1965 and only looked into four or five receipts, that on his request, he was given further time till 9-9-1965, posting the enquiry to 12-10-1965, that on 9-9-1965, the petitioner filed a written explanation and that after considering this explanation and after examining the evidence in the case, he (the Sub-Collector) came to the conclusion that the petitioner had misappropriated the two amounts stated in the notice and so. by a judgment dated 12-10-1965, the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 16,400.00under Section 5(1) and was further directed to be kept in Sub-jail. Sullurpet, till the satisfaction of the judgment, under Section 5(2) of the regulation. He further stated that on the evening of 12-10-1965, the petitioner was taken into custody and confined to sub-jail.