DATA RAM Vs. VED PARKASH CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been reported by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, with a recommendation that the order dated 22nd of November, 1967, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhri in case No. 183/2 of 1967 be quashed and a complaint filed by the present respondent, Shri Ved Parkash Chopra, advocate, Jagadhri, be dismissed.

(2.) THE facts on which this recommendation has been made have been set out very clearly by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and need not be set out fully. In brief the petitioner, Shri Data Ram, Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Surgacane, model Town. Yamunanagar, was appointed a Returning Officer by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, to scrutinize the nomination papers in connection with the election of the Managing Committee of the Naharpur Cane Growers' Cooperative society Limited, Naharpur, to be held under the Punjab Co-operative societies Act, 1961. The scrutiny was being held on the 23rd of August, 1967, and madan Lal, one of the candidates, being keen to get the nomination paper of the other candidate Dosti rejected, engaged the respondent, Shri Ved Parkash Chopra, as his counsel. Dosti had produced a witness and the respondent-counsel had started cross-examining him when the petitioner was called out by somebody and on returning to the room where the scrutiny was being held he declined permission to the respondent to participate claiming that there was no provision for a lawyer to represent a candidate. The petitioner is alleged to have told the respondent that he did not know his job and was misleading the petitioner. He also tore away the statement of Doom Singh which had been reduced into writing. The respondent made a complaint before the learned Magistrate under Sections 166 and 500, Indian Penal Code, against the present petitioner who raised an objection that in view of want of sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, and also in view of Section 84 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, the complaint must be dismissed. The learned Magistrate did not agree with this contention of the petitioner and held that there was no ground for dismissing the complaint on the objections raised. The petitioner went up in revision and the only ground on which recommendation is made for the acceptance of this revision is that when the incident took place the petitioner was acting as a Judge within the meaning of section 19, Indian Penal Code, and a Court could not take cognizance of the complaint in view of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional sessions Judge relied upon S. C. Abboy Naidu v. Kanniappa Chettiar, AIR 1929 mad 175, in support of his view.

(3.) SECTION 197, Cr. P. C. , inter alia provides for protection to any person who is a 'judge' within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code when he is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty and it is provided that no court shall take cognizance of such an offence.