BHAGWAT SINGHJI Vs. KESAR SINGHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision before me raises the question whether the former ruler of an indian State is exempt from personal appearance as a complainant in a criminal case instituted by him on the basis of his so-called personal privileges saved by or arising from the covenant resulting in the integration of the Indian State of which the complainant was the ex-Ruler with the Union of States. For appreciating the point the relevant facts may shortly be stated as follows:-

(2.) THE petitioner His Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji lodged a complaint against Shri Kesarsingh, the opposite party for an offence under Section 500 indian Penal Code in the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur. The complaint was filed by His Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji himself. Shri kesarsingh was an employee of his Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji. The statement of His Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji under Section 200, criminal Procedure Code was recorded by the learned Magistrate at the maharana's Palace at Udaipur where the learned Magistrate held his Camp, though at that stage he did not consider or decide the question relating to the alleged personal privilege of the Maharana for exemption from appearance in Court. When the accused appeared and the complainant was not himself present on a date of hearing, an objection was raised by the accused that the complaint be dismissed on account of the non-appearance of the complainant. At that stage the claim for exemption from personal appearance in Court was raised on behalf of the maharana. The learned Magistrate went into it and by his order dated 9-12-1966 he negatived the claim and asked the petitioner to appear in person in Court, if he wanted to prosecute his complaint and he made it clear that if he did not choose to appear on a further date of hearing without a lawful excuse, provisions of section 259, Criminal Procedure Code will come into play. Aggrieved of this order of the learned Magistrate the petitioner went up in revision to the Court of session. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the revision application, but he dismissed it. It is in these circumstances that the present revision application has been filed in this Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length. Two cases have been brought to my notice, one of the Punjab High Court reported as Shaukat Ali khan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 Punj 565, and another of the Madhya Pradesh high Court reported as Abdul Alim Khan v. Sagarmal, AIR 1963 Madh Pra 162, which deal with a question like the present one. The Punjab High Court has almost in similar circumstances upheld the claim of privilege on behalf of the ex-Ruler, while, on the other hand, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has negatived such a claim. The problem thus now is as to which view is to prevail and I will deal with the two cases at the appropriate stage. However, before I do that I may briefly refer to the covenant on which the claim of privilege is based.