GANGADHARABHATLA SATYANARAYANA Vs. MUDI NARAYANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of our learned brother, Bhimasankaram, J. dismissing the. application filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Kakinada, from proceeding with C. C. No. 297 of 1956 on his file.

(2.) The facts are clearly and succinctly stated by our learned brother, Bhimasankaram J. in his order. They are :

(3.) The appellant is the accused in C. C. No. 297 of 1956 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. He was elected as a member of the village panchayat of Yeleswaram, East Godavari District, at a general election which took place on 23-6-195 He was appointed by the District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada, by an order dated 30-6-1956 to act as the temporary President of the meeting of all the members so elected for the purpose of co-opting a woman member as prescribed by Section 10-A of the Madras Village Panchayats Act (Act X of 1950). The meeting was held on 11-7-1956 and the appellant declared one T. Nukamma as having been duly co-opted and made an entry to that effect in the minutes book. The first respondent, who was also one of the Members elected to the panchayat, filed a complaint against the appellant under Sections 167 and 468, I.P.C. alleging that as a matter of fact, one Samanthula Venkayamma, wife of Ramanna, must have been declared elected as she was the only person duly nominated and seconded and that the appellant fraudulently recorded in the minutes hook that Nukamma was elected. The appellant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that it contravened the provisions of Sections 103, 107 and 108 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act. Before the learned Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that sanction was necessary under Section 106 of the Panchayats Act. The learned Judge dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not he allowed to be invoked in cases where the Courts revisional jurisdiction could be exercised, though, incidentally, he made some observations in respect of the contentions raised by the appellant. Hence, the appeal.