SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Guj) 1

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :S.D.Shah
RAMJIBHAI MORARBHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT commissioner - Respondent
S.C.A. 4l2 of 1991
Decided On : 01/07/1992

Advocates Appeared: K.S.JAVERI, MOHIT S.SHAH, R.P.SOLANKI

Headnote:

Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961– Section 51 (1), 51 (3) – Constitution of India – Article. 227 Sections 171 (F), 511, 146, 353 and 506 – Indian penal Code –kSections 171 (F), 511, 146, 353 and 506 Petitioner in Special Civil Application petitioner in Special Civil Application petitions are directed against the order of suspension passed by the District Development Officer suspension is confirmed by the appellate authority by judgment and order being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Development commissioner confirming the order of the D. D. O. , petitioners have moved this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India few facts giving rise to the present proceedings are required to be stated petitioners in these petitions are duly elected Patel who was Presiding Officer in the election of Taluka Panchayat filed a criminal complaint before the Police inter alia, alleging that the sarpanch of the village and crowd of more than 100 persons have committed offences punishable under Secs. 171 (F), 511, 146, 353 and 506 of Indian penal Code the said F. I. R. it was alleged by the complainant that while he was in-charge of election booth of election one woman presented herself and applied for ballot paper. At that time it was found that on her finger just immediate to the left thumb there was a mark indicating that she had exercised her vote, and thereupon the complainant and other officer who was supervising the election stated to the said woman that to exercise vote in the name of other person was an offence and when she has already exercised her right to vote, she should say the truth –Held, In fact, the legislature has used the word "criminal proceeding" and not "criminal prosecution". The word "criminal proceedings" are of wider connotation so as to include the proceeding on information for a criminal offence. The distinction between "criminal prosecution" and "criminal proceedings" was examined by the Court of appeal in the case of Yates (plaintiff in error) v. The Queen (Defendant in error ). The appeal Court observed in the said decision that the term "proceeding" is different from the term "criminal prosecution" and that it is wider than criminal prosecution. The Court also found that the proceeding by information for libel is a criminal proceeding though it is not a criminal prosecution. In the aforesaid sense an information for offence is a criminal proceeding though it cannot be said to be a criminal prosecution. The submission made by the learned Counsel and the decisions on which he has placed reliance are referrable to criminal prosecution and not to criminal proceedings in the sense in which the said phrase is used by the legislature. In my opinion, the phrase "criminal proceedings" is required to be widely construed so as to include even an F. I. R. and there is no justification in giving them narrow construction of criminal prosecution which can be said to have been instituted only when a charge-sheet is filed in a competent Criminal Court and when the competent Criminal Court has taken cognizance thereof. Court therefore, not inclined to accept the first submission learned Counsel for petitioners, and the same is rejected – Ordered Accordingly.

SHAH, J.

( 1 ) ). The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 412 of 1991 is Ramjibhai M. Patel, Sarpanch of Manud Gram Panchayat, Patan Taluka of Mehsana District. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 413 of 1991 is Shankarbhai N. Patel who is Upa-Sarpanch of said Gram Panchayat.

( 2 ) ). Both these petitions are directed against the order of suspension passed by the District Development Officer, Mehsana-the second respondent herein on 12-10-1987 under Sec. 51 (1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The said order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner in each petition by preferring appeal to the Additional development Commissioner-the respondent No. 1 herein under Sec. 51 (3) of the said Act and said order of suspension is confirmed by the appellate authority by judgment and order, dated 29-12-1990.

( 3 ) ). Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Development commissioner on 29-12-1990 confirming the order of the D. D. O. , dated 12- 10-1987, the petitioners have moved this Court under Art. 227 of the constitution of India.

( 4 ) ). Few facts giving rise to the present proceedings are required to be stated hereunder : (i) The petitioners in these petitions are duly elected Sarpanch and Upa- sarpanch of Manud Gram Panchayat. One Khodabhai Shankarbhai Patel who was Presiding Officer in the election of Taluka Panchayat filed a criminal complaint before the Police on 20-1-1987, inter alia, alleging that the sarpanch of the village and crowd of more than 100 persons have committed offences punishable under Secs. 171 (F), 511, 146, 353 and 506 of Indian penal Code. In the said F. I. R. it was alleged by the complainant that while he was in-charge of election booth of election of Patan Taluka Panchayat at village Manud at 3. 45 p. m. one woman presented herself and applied for ballot paper. At that time it was found that on her finger just immediate to the left thumb there was a mark indicating that she had exercised her vote, and thereupon the complainant and other officer who was supervising the election stated to the said woman that to exercise vote in the name of other person was an offence and when she has already exercised her right to vote, she should say the truth. The woman insisted that she has not exercised right to vote at that election and upon verification it was found that she had already exercised her right to vote and had also cast her vote and she thereupon admitted that she had already exercised her right to vote. Thereupon the ballot paper which was issued to her was taken back from her. It was at this juncture, that the Sarpanch of Manud Gram Panchayat came to the polling booth and threatened the complainant (Polling officer) and forcibly caused the escape of said woman from the polling booth. He, thereafter took Babubhai Patel a candidate at the said election out of the polling booth and at that time crowd of more than 100 persons committed assault. Accordingly, the said polling officer filed F. I. R. on that very day before P. S. I. , Patan. It appears that the P. S. I. , Patan had, thereafter, undertaken investigation in said Cr. Reg. No. 12 of 1987 and he had submitted his report to the D. D. O. , Mehsanasecond respondent herein on 20-2-1987. By the said report the P. S. I. , Patan had reported to the D. D. O. , Mehsana that the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of Manud Gram Panchayat were involved in Cr. Reg. No. 12 of 1987 for offences punishable under Secs. 147, 353, 171 (F), 332, 506 (2), 511 and 379 of Indian Penal Code read with Secs. 28 and 29 of Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. He further reported that one woman, namely, Rasilaben Nitinkumar patel tried to cast bogus vote and she was actually caught while attempting to practise impersonation. At that time, Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of Manud gram Panchayat formed unlawful assembly and committed attacked on polling booth and even caused injuries to the employees who were in-charge o

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top