The power of a municipality to remove its president or vice-president under Section 23(7) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 is unrestricted and includes the power to remove for reasons of misconduct, neglect of duty, or incapacity to perform duties.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 197 - BOMBAY DISTRICT MUNICIPAL ACT, 1901 - SECTION 23(7) - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION OF PUBLIC SERVANT - REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT OF DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The accused, a Vice-President of a District Municipality, was charged with offences under Sections 352, 504, 506, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly abusing and threatening a councillor during a board meeting. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, holding that the accused was a public servant and required sanction from the State Government. The complainant filed a revision application in the Sessions Court, which set aside the Magistrate's order and directed further inquiry.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not necessary in this case because the accused, as a Vice-President of a District Municipality, was removable from office not only by the State Government but also by the municipality itself under Section 23(7) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. The Court interpreted Section 23(7) to mean that the municipality had unrestricted power to remove its president or vice-president, including for reasons of misconduct, neglect of duty, or incapacity to perform duties.
Issues: 1. Whether sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary for the prosecution of the accused, a Vice-President of a District Municipality, for offences committed while acting in his official capacity. 2. Whether the municipality had the power to remove its president or vice-president for reasons of misconduct, neglect of duty, or incapacity to perform duties.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires sanction from the State Government for the prosecution of a public servant who is removable from office only by or with the sanction of the State Government. 2. Section 23(7) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 provides that the president or vice-president of a district municipality can be removed from office by the municipality itself by a resolution passed by three-fourths of the councillors, or by the State Government for misconduct, neglect of duty, or incapacity to perform duties. 3. The power of the municipality to remove its president or vice-president is unrestricted and includes the power to remove for reasons of misconduct, neglect of duty, or incapacity to perform duties. 4. Therefore, the accused, as a Vice-President of a District Municipality, was not removable from office only by or with the sanction of the State Government, and thus sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not necessary for his prosecution.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the accused's revision application and discharged the rule. The Magistrate's order dismissing the complaint was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to proceed with the complaint under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code and dispose of the case after due inquiry according to law.

JUDGMENT - 1. One Vishvamohan Raghvirprasad, who was the Vive-President of the District Municipality at Dharangaon, Taluka Erandol, occupied the chair at a meeting of the General Board or the Municipality held on 23rd August 1961 since the President had not arrived at the meeting in time. The complainant Mahadu. Chaudhari was one of the councillors and he was present at that meeting. It was alleged by the complainant that in course of the proceedings at that meeting the Vice-President Vishvamohan addressed the "following words to him :

"You Mahadu, what do you think of yourself? What is your worth and what is your status so that you may talk to others against me like a minor and go against our plans? I will bring down your intoxication and if you have fight in you, I will set it right. Jn case you support any action against us, I shall be able to deal with all of you. In case you become aggressive on the support of others, I will deal with you. I warn you that dont utter a single word and dont take any action, otherwise you will suffer for the same."

According to the complainant, the Vice-president further addressed him as follows:

"What do you think. I shall deal with each one of you. Whosoever is so mean, cannot be ignored. I shall have to change my attitude and deal with them. I am able to do so and I shall settle the matter with each one of them."

It was further alleged by the complainant that the Vice-President also used the word Nalayak. The complainant then moved the Collector in connection, with the abuses the Vice-President had given to him at the meeting and he also moved the Government requesting them to remove the Vice-President from his Office. The complainant was, however, informed that the matter related to a private dispute and it was open to him to move the appropriate authorities in the matter. This information was alleged to have been given to the complainant by the Collector on I2th July 1962. On 25th August 1962, the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, ist Class, Erandol, charging that Vice-president Vishvamohan with offences under Section 352, 504, 506 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the complaint the learned Magistrate passed the following order :

"keep for argument before issuing process for 1-0-1962."

On ist September, 1962, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:

"Heard arguments. Issue notice to othet side."

The case was then fixed for arguments on 16th October, 1962, but the arguments were eventually heard on 6th November 1962. On and January, 1963, the learned Magistrate delivered the judgment and gave his findings on two points :

(i) whether the complaint was barred for want of sanction of the State Government required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code since the accused in his capacity as a Vice-president was a public servant within the-meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 45 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, and had acted as such at the board meeting on the day in question, and (2) whether there was any prima facie case against the accused. The finding of the learned Magistrate on the first point was in the affirmative and on the second point also in the affirmative in respect of offences under Sections 504 and 506 (1) of the Penal Code, In the result, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint summarily for want of sanction required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Against this order of the learned Magistrate, the complainant filed a revision application in the Sessions Court at jalgaon. The learned Sessions Judge in his exhaustive judgment held that by virtue of the provisions of Section 23(7) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, the State Government was not the only authority which could remove a President or Vice-president of a District Municipality and that, therefore, no sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary before the learned Magi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document