VADAKKE PEEDIYAKKAL UNNIANKUTTY Vs. VALLAPALLY GOVINDAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the petitioner in revision. He was directed to pay compensation to the accused, a Tillage Munsif and Magistrate whom he charged with taking a bribe of annas twelve for registering two vakalats and for authenticating an affidavit (Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code) and with refusing afterwards to register and authenticate them unless a fine of Rs. 5 was paid (Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code). The Magistrate found the complaint to be false and vexatious and directed the complainant to pay compensation to the accused. On the facts and merits the complainant, petitioner, has, in my opinion, no case.

(2.) Mr. Sundaram, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that though his client it was that brought the complaint and made the Magistrate take cognisance of it, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction over the case, as the accused Village Munsif and Magistrate was either a Judge or a public servant not removable from his office without the sanction of the Local Government within the meaning of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and as the sanction of a superior Court or of a superior public servant to whom the Village Munsif and Magistrate is subordinate had not been obtained under that section for prosecuting the Village Munsif. As the order for compensation was passed in the case, so taken cognisance of, without jurisdiction, it was itself also bad for want of jurisdiction.

(3.) The learned Counsel, however, gave up frankly during the course of the argument one branch of his contention, namely, that the Village Munsif was a public servant not removable from his office except with the sanction of the Government (see Section 7, Regulation 6 of 1831 which provides that Village Headmen are removable from office by Collectors).