( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the Sarpanch of Ziila- Vasna village in Chanasma Taluka of Mehsana District against the order of suspension made against him by the District Development Officer Mehsana under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 51 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 Respondent No. 3. is a resident of Zilia village. He was given S. No. 177 of Zilia for cultivation by the Government of Gujarat on 30th November 1972. Possession thereof was given to him on 22nd June 1973. It appears that S. No. 177 was a Kharaba or a waste land. Respondent No. 3 therefore cultivated the adjoining land S. No. 210 of Zilia-Vasna. It was a Gauchar land. The petitioner therefore lodged against respondent No. 3 an information before the Police Sub-Inspector Chanasma on 21st July 1973 in respect of certain offences which respondent No. 3 was alleged to have committed. Respondent No. 3 in his turn lodged information against the petitioner and other members of the Panchayat for offences alleged to have been committed by them under secs. 447 504 506 114 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 161 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 An application was made to the District Development Officer to take action against the petitioner under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 51. The District Development Officer held an inquiry into the matter and by his order dated 4th January 1975 suspended the petitioner from the sarpanchship of Zilia-Vasana Gram Panchayat on the ground that he was involved in criminal proceedings in respect of an offence involving moral turpitude. The petitioner appealed against that order to the Development Commissioner Gujarat State. The Development Commissioner after hearing the parties confirmed the order made by the District Development Officer and dismissed the appeal.

( 2 ) IT is that order which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

( 3 ) MR. R. N. Shah who appears for the petitioner has raised before me the contention that the impugned order of suspension is not justified by the terms of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 51. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 51 provides as under :the District Development Officer may suspend from office the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of a gram panchayat or as the case may be the Chairman or Vice Chairman of a nagar panchayat against whom any criminal proceedings in respect of an offence involving moral turpitude have been instituted or who has been detained in a prison during trial under the provisions of any law for the time being in force. THIS sub-section requires that one of the two factors must be satisfied before an order of suspension is made against a Sarpanch by the District Development Officer. The first condition is that any criminal proceedings in respect of an offence involving moral turpitude have been instituted against the Sarpanch. The second factor is that he must have been detained in a prison during trial under the provisions of any law for the time being in force. In the instant case the petitioner has not been detained in a prison. Therefore the second alternative specified in sub- sec. (1) of sec. 51 is not attracted to the present case. Mr. R. N. Shah has argued that the offences which have been alleged against the petitioner do not involve moral turpitude. He has also argued that the lodging of information with the police does not amount to any criminal proceedings. Now the question whether the information lodged with the police amounts to institution of criminal proceedings is not difficult to answer. If the legislature had meant by criminal proceedings in a Court of law or judicial proceedings in a Criminal Court of Law it would have unmistakably said so. The legislature has not used that language in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 51. The legislature has used the expression any criminal proceedings which admits of a very wide connotation. Proceedings can be before a Court of law or before a police officer who is competent to entertain them. If such proceedings whether before a Court of la