Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
Gangadharabhatla Satyanarayana of Yeleswaram - Appellant
Versus
Mudi Narayanswami of Yeleswaram - Respondent
Decided On : 12-24-59
CRIMINAL REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY - DISMISSAL FOR DEFAULT - WHETHER BARS SUBSEQUENT PETITION - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - WHETHER NECESSARY - DELEGATION OF POWER TO GIVE SANCTION - VALIDITY - FORM OF SANCTION - REQUIREMENTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a member of the Panchayat Board, was appointed as temporary President to conduct a meeting for co-option of a woman member. The co-option was challenged in a writ petition, which was dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy by way of an election petition. The respondent filed an election petition and also prayed for condonation of delay in filing it, which was granted without notice to the affected parties. A Division Bench of the High Court issued a writ of prohibition directing the District Munsif not to proceed with the election petition. The respondent then filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 167 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging forgery and false documents. The petitioner raised the objection that the prosecution is bad for want of sanction. The Inspector-General of Local Administration, claiming delegated power under Section 106 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, gave sanction to the respondent to prosecute the petitioner. A previous Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default, and a subsequent petition to restore the same was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
1. The order of dismissal for default in a previous Criminal Revision Petition does not operate as a judgment under Section 369 Cr. P. C. and does not bar the filing of a fresh petition, as it is not a judicial decision on the merits. 2. Sanction under Section 106 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act is required for prosecution of a public servant for acts done in the discharge of official duties. 3. The power to give sanction under Section 106 cannot be delegated by the Government to any other authority, officer, or person under Section 127 of the Act, as it involves a quasi-judicial decision. 4. The sanction given by the Inspector-General of Local Administration in this case is invalid as it is vague and does not specify the offence, section of the Penal Code, or the court in which the prosecution is to be launched.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of dismissal for default in a previous Criminal Revision Petition operates as a judgment under Section 369 Cr. P. C. and bars the filing of a fresh petition. 2. Whether sanction under Section 106 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act is required for prosecution of a public servant for acts done in the discharge of official duties. 3. Whether the power to give sanction under Section 106 can be delegated by the Government to any other authority, officer, or person under Section 127 of the Act. 4. Whether the sanction given by the Inspector-General of Local Administration in this case is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order of dismissal for default in a Criminal Revision Petition is not a judgment within the meaning of Section 369 Cr. P. C. and does not bar the filing of a fresh petition, as it is not a judicial decision on the merits. 2. Sanction under Section 106 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act is required for prosecution of a public servant for acts done in the discharge of official duties, as the underlying principle is to protect public servants from indiscriminate prosecutions for acts committed in the discharge of their official functions. 3. The power to give sanction under Section 106 cannot be delegated by the Government to any other authority, officer, or person under Section 127 of the Act, as it involves a quasi-judicial decision. 4. The sanction given by the Inspector-General of Local Administration in this case is invalid as it is vague and does not specify the offence, section of the Penal Code, or the court in which the prosecution is to be launched.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The proceedings taken in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent are quashed.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Kakinada, made in C. C. No. 297 of 1956 rejecting the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner before him as to the maintainability of the prosecution in that case.
( 2 ) THE facts out of which this revision petition has arisen may be briefly stated; The petitioner was a member of the Panchayat Board, Yeleswaram in East Godavari District. He was appointed as temporary President for the purpose of conducting a meeting of the Panchayat Board in order to effect the co-option of a woman member to the Panchayat Board. This meeting was conducted on 11-7-1956. At that meeting one Nookamma was co-opted as the woman member. The respondent in this revision petition filed a Writ Petition in the High Court against the co-option, which was dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy by way of an election petition lay. Later the respondent filed an election petition questioning the co-option. While doing so he also prayed for the condonation of delay in tiling the election petition, as apparently it was not filed within the time prescribed by law. The delay was, however, condoned without notice to the affected parties.
( 3 ) A Division Bench of this court issued a writ of prohibition directing the District Munsif before whom the election petition was pending not to proceed with it and the writ was made absolute by a decision reported in Gangadharabhatla Satyanarayana v. M. Narayanaswami, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 28. The respondent thereupon filed a complaint against the present petitioner under Sections 167 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the petitioner, who was a public servant, made false documents and was guilty of forgery. These very contentions were raised in both the writ matters and also in the election petition. In Writ Appeal No. 162 of 1957, the necessity of sanction was raised; but this court observed that it could be raised at the trial and need not be considered in that appeal. Accordingly, the present petitioner, against whom a prosecution was tiled in the court of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Kakinada under Sections 167 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, raised the objection that the prosecution is bad for want of sanction. The actual position is that the Inspector-General of Local Administration, claiming that the power to give sanction under Section 106 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, had been delegated to him, gave sanction to the present respondent, to prosecute the present petitioner. It is not disputed that a similar Criminal Revision Petition had been previously preferred by the present petitioner viz. , Criminal Revision Case No. 32 of 1959, and that the same was dismissed for default. This petition was in fact dismissed for default although the endorsement thereon read "no grounds for interference in revision are made out. This petition is dismissed". Subsequent to this, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 320 of 1959 was filed by the petitioner to restore the said Criminal Revision Petition to file, and to dispose of the same on the merits. This petition was disposed of by an order of this Court made on 13-3-1959 wherein my learned brother, Krishnarao, J. ordered as follows:"as the petitioners learned counsel did not request anybody present in the Court to move for time on his behalf, I see no reason to condone his absence or to set aside the dismissal for default. Of course, the Revision Petition was dismissed only for default, and not on merits. The sentence in my order "no grounds for interference in revision are made out" is merely consequential and means that there was default by the petitioners counsel. The order of dismissal will not preclude the petitioner from filing another revision, if it is in time".
( 4 ) IT is in pursuance of this order that the present Revision Petition had been preferred by the petitioner an
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
