C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) ON 25-08-1999 the Mandal Revenue officer-cum-Mandal Executive Officer, narasapur, gave a report to the Station House officer, Narasapur (T) Police Station, alleging that when he, on the instructions of the revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur, accompanied by the Assistant Engineer, housing Board and others went to madhavaipalem to settle a land dispute with regard to the pathway in an approved lay out in which pattas for house sites were granted to some Yanadi caste people and started taking measurements, petitioner, who happens to be the Vice-chairperson of narsapur Municipality. Narasapur, came there and enquired as to why he was there and when gave a reply, petitioner became furious and abused him in a filthy and foul language in a loud voice staring. and create fear in his and the minds of the other officials that were present there. The said complaint was registered as FIR and after investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for offences under sections 353 and 506 (2) IPC which was taken on file by the learned Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Narasapur, as C. C. No. 123 of 2000.

( 2 ) ALLEGING that since he went to the scene, where the alleged offence took place, only on the instructions of the Chairperson of the narasapur Municipality in his official capacity and since no sanction to prosecute him was obtained in view of Section 375 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, prosecution against him is unsustainable, petitioner filed this petition to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 123/2000.

( 3 ) SECTION 375 of the Andhra Pradesh municipalities Act, 1965 (the Act) reads:"when the Chairperson, any member, the Commissioner or Municipal Health officer or any other Officer is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the government. "

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner, who is the Vice-Chairperson of the municipality went to the scene only on the instructions of the Chairperson, it is clear that he was at the scene in his official capacity, as the Vice-Chairperson and also the nominee of the Chairperson and so he cannot be prosecuted without the prior sanction of the government and had the de facto complainant or the investigating Officer sought permission to prosecute the petitioner, government would have caused an enquiry into and would have decided whether to sanction or not to sanction the permission for prosecution, the prosecution against the petitioner is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. He placed strong reliance on abdul Wahab Ansariv. State of Biharand another in support of his said contention. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

( 5 ) IN order to find out whether sanction to prosecute under Section 375 of the Act is necessary, it has to be seen whether the act complained of is integrally connected with or has reasonable nexus to the discharge of the duty of the Officers of the municipality. If the act complained of has nothing to do with the official duty, or when it has no reasonable nexus to the discharge of official duty of the Officers of the municipality mentioned in Section 375 of the Act, no sanction from government would be necessary.

( 6 ) THE powers and functions of the chairperson are found in Section 47 to 50 of the Act. Section 50 of the Act empowers the chairperson delegating his functions to the vice-Chairperson. No provision in the Act empowers or authorizes either the chairperson or any of the Officers of the municipality hurling abuses or intimidating any citizen or Officer of the other department in discharge of their duty under the provisions of the Act. In fact the object of section 375 of the Act is to enable the chairperson and other officers mentioned therein to discha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document