KAMLA PATEL Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The applicant in this case had brought a complaint Under Section 500, I.P.C., against three members of the Village Panchayat Criminal Bench which had convicted him of an offence Under Section 323, I.P.C., alleging that they passed certain defamatory remarks in the course of their judgment. The Head-quarters Magistrate, Mandla, dismissed the complaint Under Section 203, Criminal P.C., and the District Magistrate declined to interfere. I am now asked that the orders in the Courts below should be set aside and that the Magistrate should be directed to proceed according to law. The conviction by the Village Panchayat Bench in respect of which the present accusation is made was set aside by the District Magistrate on the ground that during the trial of the case the accused himself was made a member of the Bench and that consequently there was no jurisdiction. In his order dismissing Under Section 203, Criminal P.C., the complaint Under Section 500, I.P.C., the Headquarters Magistrate has given as his reasons for dismissing the complaint that the Village Panchayat were acting judicially in passing the judgment and that they are protected Under Section 77, I.P.C., and holds that in view of this section they cannot be prosecuted Under Section 500, I.P.C., in respect of any remarks passed in the course of their judgment. This view is upheld by the District Magistrate in revision. His order, miscalled a judgment, is as follows:

(2.) IT appears to me that the point in both the complaints before the Headquarters Magistrate and the application in revision has been missed. Both Courts are correct in saying that although the Bench had no actual jurisdiction to convict the applicant of an offence Under Section 323, I.P.C., as the applicant was not at the time of delivering judgment amenable to their jurisdiction, they cannot be held to have acted in bad faith, and are protected in so far as any action connected with the actual conviction is concerned by Section 77, I.P.C. But it is not in respect of his conviction that the present applicant complains. His grievance relates to the remarks made by the Village Panchayat in convicting him, remarks which the learned District Magistrate has held to be improper and which he has already pointed out to the Panchayat. The remarks are to the effect that the accused in the case is such a person that bis very association with the case makes the matter so clear that no further proof is required. Although the circumstances of the conviction are such as to leave no doubt that the Village Panchayat believed in good faith that they had jurisdiction to convict the accused, the words used are not such which can prima facie be said to have been made in good faith and to entitle the non-applicants to the benefit of Section 203, Criminal P.C., at sight. Section 77, I.P.C., is not the only section which is concerned with the protection of Judges and Magistrates in the exercise of their office. There are also the exceptions to Section 499 to be considered and their very existence indicates that the provisions of Section 77 cannot by themselves cover the case of remarks made by a Judge or Magistrate in the course of his office, so as to except him from any liability Under Section 500, I.P.C. I am unable to appreciate the distinction drawn by the learned counsel for the non-applicants to the effect that the protection afforded by Section 77 operates in respect of a written judgment and would not do so in the case of remarks made in the course of a judgment delivered orally.