RAMDUTT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Ram Dutt and 13 others against the order of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Jalore dated 5th May, 1964 in a complaint case under Sections 384, 147 and 427 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT was alleged in the complaint that the accused, who were 18 in number formed an unlawful assembly on 20th January, 1962 and in prosecution of their common object removed the complainant's 'bada' and thatch and also dishonestly took away a number of articles including a cow. Amongst the accused Ram Dutt is Sarpanch, Mishrilal an Up-Sarpanch and Sukhraj, Thaniya and Gajra are Panchas of the Gram Panchayat, Umedabad. Some of these accused urged before the trial Magistrate that their prosecution without the previous sanction of the State was barred in view of the provisions of Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code. It was urged that the 'bada' in dispute was removed by them in the discharge of their official duty. It was pointed out that the resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat for the removal of the disputed 'bada' on 5-3-1959. Thereafter on 14th January, 1962 a notice was given to the complainant to remove that 'bada', but he failed to do so, and so the members of the Panchayat removed it on 20th January, 1962 and also prepared an inventory of the articles found in the 'bada' which were duly entrusted to the custody of the Motbirs. It was urged that under Section 27 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 the Panchayat was entitled to remove the 'bada' when the complainant failed to remove it in spite of a notice given to him. On behalf of the complainant it was urged that the complainant had filed an appeal against the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 5th March, 1959 and also obtained a stay order from the Vikas Adhikari on 17th January, 1962, which was duly communicated to the accused before they undertook the removal of 'bada'. In such circumstances it was urged on behalf of the complainant that the accused cannot be said to have been acting in the discharge of their official, duty. The learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate as well as the learned District Magisstate in revision overruled the objection of the accused. Hence this revision.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that on the date the complaint was filed the petitioner No. 1 Ramdutt was Sarpanch, Mishri Lal an Up-sarpanch and Sukhraj a Panch of the Gram Panchayat, Umedabad. With regard to the petitioners Thaniya, and Gajra though the lower court has said in its judgment that they are also Panchas but there is nothing on the record to substantiate that fact and the learned counsel for the complainant is not prepared to accept this fact, without further instructions.