Judgment

UNTWALIA, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave. The question which falls for determination is whether a charge could be legally and validly framed on the facts alleged by the prosecution against the appellant under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code - hereinafter called the Code.

2. An incident is said to have taken place in a meeting of the District Advisory Committee of Kolaba District held on the 22nd of August, 1970 at about 3.00 p.m. in a pandal near the Nehru Hall at Alibag under the Chairmanship of Shri A. R. Antulay-a Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. The appellant was a member of the Legislative Assembly and his brother was the Sabhapati of the Building Department of the Zilla Parishad. Both of them attended the meeting. Certain incidents took place in that meeting, which according to the prosecution, amounted to assault or use of criminal force by the appellant to the Minister a public servant - in the execution of his duty as such public servant within the meaning of Section 353 of the Code. It was further alleged that the action of both the brothers also amounted to assault or use of criminal force to Shri Antulay intending thereby to dishonour him, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, within the meaning of Section 355. A complaint of the incident was lodged with the police. Investigation was made and Charge-Sheet was submitted in the court of the Judicial Magistrate at Alibag against both the accused for offences alleged to have been committed by them under Sections 353 and 355 read with section 34 of the Code. On perusal of the papers in accordance with Section 251A of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 and after hearing the arguments the Magistrate found that Shri Antulay, being a Minister, was a public servant. In that capacity he was presiding over the meeting of the District Advisory Committee of Kolaba District. He, however, held that the meeting of the Committee was illegal because it was not convened at the instance of the Commissioner of the Division as required by the Rules. He also held that, the appellant who was accused no, 1, at the most, had prepared to assault the Minister and not actually assaulted or used Criminal force. The appellant was discharged by the Magistrate in relation to the charge under Section 353, but a charge under Section 355 read with Sec. 511 was framed against him. His brother, accused no. 2, was however completely exonerated and discharged.

3. Two revisions were filed before the Sessions Judge, Kolaba one by the State and the other by the appellant. The State wanted charges to be framed against the appellant under Sections 353 and 355 and also against accused no. 2. The appellant, however, wanted the Sessions Judge to quash the charge framed against him under Section 355/511 of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the State in part and dismissed the one filed by the appellant. He directed the framing of charges against the appellant under both the Sections, viz. 353 and 355 of the Code. The discharge of accused no. 2 was, however, maintained. The matter was taken further in revision before the Bombay High Court by the appellant only. The High Court has directed the framing of the charge against the appellant both under Sections 353 and 355 of the Code. Hence this appeal by special leave.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant did not canvass before us the justification of the discharge of the appellant for the offence under Section 353 of the Code on the ground of the allegedly illegal convening of the meeting of the Advisory Committee. We are, therefore, not called upon to express any opinion of ours in this judgment in that regard. Nor should we be deemed to have expressed any opinion, even by implication, as to the truth or falsehood of the allegations made against the appellant, or, whether the prosecution by its evidence will be able to prove the charge against the appellant. We confine our j