SYED JAFERUKLAH JAFERI Vs. ABDUL AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been placed before us to consider whether Crl. R. C. No. 441 of 1964 (AP) was rightly decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) The facts of the present case are as follows: The petitioner filed a complaint before the 8th City Magistrate against respondents 2 to 8 for alleged offences under Sections 448, 454, 341, 295-A and 426, I. P. C. and against respondent No. 1 for abetment of those offences. The first respondent is the Secretary of the Wakf Board, appointed by the State Government under the provisions of Section 21 of the Wakfs Act , 1954. The Wakf Board is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, established by the State Government under Section 9 of the Wakfs Act. Respondents 2 to 5 are stated to be employees of the Wakf Board while respondents 6 to 8 are not stated to have any official status. it is alleged in the complaint that under the instruction of respondent 1, respondents 2 to 8 invaded premises No. 17-2-940, Rain Bazar Hyderabad in the possession of the complainant and belonging to this ward M. Zaman Mohammed. The premises houses the private library of late Hanamuz Zaman Mohamed ancestor of M. Zaman Mohamad in one of its rooms. The library contains many ancient and valuable manuscripts and books. It is the property of M. Zaman Mohammed. On 30-7-1966, when the complainant was absent from the premises, respondents 2 to 8 despite the protests and in violation of the privacy of the pardanashin women folk in the premises, entered the premises, broke open the locks on the doors of the library, put their own locks and departed. The complainant arrived on the scene towards the lend but was helpless. He reported to the police but without avail. It is stated in the complaint that the Wakf Board has no executive powers and cannot evict persons from any premises without the due process of law. it is also alleged in the complaint that the Wakf Board is inimically disposed towards the complainant because he has filed a suit O. P. No. 97/1966 in the Court of the 1st Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in respect of this very property against the first respondent and others. It is further alleged in the complaint that the actions of the first respondent are actuated by malice against the complainant.

(3.) The respondents after appearing before the learned magistrate raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable for want of requisite sanction under Section 197 Crl. P. C. and also because Section 65 of the wakfs Act, 1954 barred the prosecution. Upholding the objection, the learned Magistrate purported to dismiss the complaint and on revision petition filed by the complainant, the Principal Sessions Judge confirmed the order. Both the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge followed an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Crl. R. C. No. 441 of 1964 decided on 12-8-1964. The complainant has filed the present revision against the orders of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge and it is contended on his behalf that Crl. R. C. 441 of 1964 was wrongly decided.