PASUPATI BANERJI Vs. THE KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule has been obtained by one Pashupati Banerjee praying that certain proceedings against him should be quashed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this Rule may be briefly stated as follows : On 19th July 1948, the petitioner Pashupati Banerjee wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Kamarhati Municipality objecting to the inclusion of the name, Sri Sushil Kumar Mukherjee in the preliminary Electoral Roll. In his letter, the petitioner asserted that he had come to know after an informal enquiry that Sushil Kumar Mukherjee did not pay in -come -tax, that therefore he could not claim to be a voter and that his name should be struck off if it was found after necessary enquiry that he did not pay the income -tax. Copies of the letter to the Chairman were sent to various persons amongst whom was the Sub -Divisional Officer of Barrackpore. With the copy was sent the following observation:

(3.) THE allegations which were made by Pashupati Banerjee against Sushil Kumar Mukherjee were made to the Chairman of the Municipality for necessary action and the Chairman alone could act upon this letter. It is true that a copy was sent to the Sub -Divisional Officer with a certain request but it could not be said that any offence has been committed by this act on the part of the petitioner. If the statements made by Pashupati Banerjee against Sushil Kumar Mukherjee are false, then the only person who could file a complaint against Pashupati Banerjee would be the Chairman of the Municipality or some officer subordinate to the Chairman. The Sub -Divisional Officer was not an officer subordinate to the Chairman and therefore he had no right to complain. By virtue of the provisions of Section 195(1), Criminal P. C., the Court could take cognizance of the complaint only upon the complaint of the Chairman or his subordinate. The Court was wrong in taking cognizance of the complaint of the Sub -Divisional Officer.