LAKSHMI NARAYANA AYYAR Vs. CHINNAPPA GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this case is whether a complaint now pending against the petitioners before the Subdivisional Magistrate of Pollachi accusing them of offences under Secs.193, 204 and 471, I. P. C, is incompetent for want of sanction of the Local Government under Section 197, Criminal P.C.

(2.) The allegations in the complaint are as follows: The complainant, the two accused; petitioners (who are respectively the karnam and headman of the village) and two others mentioned as complainants witnesses were elected as members of a Panchayat Court constituted under the Village Courts Act, for the village of Nanjundapuram. The five members were required by a notice given by the Revenue "Divisional Officer to elect a President on 23 September 1929. As the notices were given too late, the meeting for the election was in fact held on 27 September at which all the five members were present. The mode of election prescribed by the rules is by ballot by using slips of paper. Lots were however cast but the person whose name was drawn surrendered his right in favour of the complainant and by common consent complainant was elected. The complainant accordingly drew up the proceedings to that effect and got the signatures of all the five members present and entrusted it to the second petitioner, the headman, to forward the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer through the Tahsildar. The allegation is that instead of forwarding the true proceedings as above, the two accused together suppressed the genuine document and fabricated and forwarded a false report showing that the meeting had taken place on 23 September and that accused 1 had been elected President and that for the purpose of supporting the fabrication had altered the dates in accused 2's tappal book showing the date of service of the notice of meeting from 27 to 23 September. It appears that the Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of this proceeding and believing it to be true, approved the election of accused 1 on or about 19 October 1929; that on knowing this the complainant petitioned the Tahsildar; that the Tahsildar held an enquiry at which the accused put forward and relied on the false proceedings and tappal book in support of the alleged election of accused 1 and that the Revenue Divisional Officer on the Tahsildar's report set aside his previous order approving accused 1's election, and holding that the election of the complainant was itself irregular ordered a fresh election.

(3.) The petitioners (accused) took three preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint : (1) that the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar in holding the enquiry were acting as a revenue Court and that therefore the offence under Section 193 could not be taken cognizance of without a complaint from that Court; (2) that the allegations amounted to a charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B for which the consent of the Local Government or District Magistrate is necessary; (3) that the petitioners purported to act as Judge within the meaning of Section 197, Criminal P.C., in the conduct attributed to them and that the sanction of the Local Government is necessary. The Sub- divisional Magistrate overruled all these objections. Hence this petition.