NANHE Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STAPLES , A.J.C. 1. The applicant; Nanhe has applied for revision against the order of the Sessions Judge, Jubbulpore, dismissing the applicant's application for revision against an order of the Honorary Magistrate, Jubbulpore. A complaint was filed against the applicant in the Court of the Honorary Magistrate, Jubbulpore, under Section 178(5) of the Municipal Act. The complaint was on a printed form and was signed by a police officer, City Superintendent Santsingh. Upon the complaint being received the Magistrates ordered process to issue against the applicant. The case was adjourned on several hearings, but at the hearing of the 22nd December 1928, the pleader for the applicant asked that Santasingh, the City Superintendent, must attend in person. The Court, however, held that his appearance was not necessary as Section 200(aa) and 217, proviso, Criminal P.C. gave ample authority that his presence might be dispensed with. The ease was then fixed for evidence on 22nd January. In the meantime the applicant made an application for revision to the Sessions Judge, conferring that the provisions of Section 200, Criminal P.C., were imperative and that Santsingh ought to have been examined and that, if ho did not appear, the case should have been dismissed under Section 247 of the Code. It was further contended that Santsingh was not a public servant for the purposes of the Municipal Act and that when he filed a complaint under the Municipal Act he did not act in the discharge of his official duties.

(2.) THE Sessions Judge held that, as the City Superintendent had been authorized under Section 218, Municipal Act, by the Municipal Committee to make complaints with regard to offences under sections of the Municipal Act, the Municipal Committee was really the complainant. He further held that a Municipal Committee was a corporate body composed of Municipal Commissioners and that under Section 21, I.P.C., a Municipal Commissioner is a public servant. From this the Sessions Judge reasoned that it could be held that the Municipal Committee which was composed of public servants is itself as a corporate body, a public servant. The Sessions Judge therefore gave his opinion that the Municipal Committee was a public servant and that therefore the agent who was appointed to represent them in filing a complaint in Court need not be examined as provided under Section 200(aa), Criminal P.C.

(3.) I am of opinion, then, that the view taken by the Bench of Honorary Magistrates is correct that the complaint was by Santsingh, but that Santsingh was a public servant and was acting in the discharge of his officer duties in making the complaint and that therefore his personal attend mce of examination was not necessary under Section 200(aa), Criminal P.C., nor was the complaint liable to be dismissed according to the proviso of Section 247 of the Code. I would only add that, in my opinion, the view taken by the Sessions Judge, that the complaint was by the Municipal Committee and not by Santsingh, is incorrect and that also the view propounded by him that a Municipal Committee is a public servant, is incorrect. A corporation such as a Municipal Committee, is not a public servant though the members forming the corporation are public servants. I therefore dismiss the application for revision and send the case back to the Honorary Magistrate for decision according to law.