Judgment Bhandari, J.-This case has been referred by a Single Judge of this Court to a larger Bench as there is a divergence of Judicial opinion in this Court on the point whether a Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat is or is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government.

2. Thecomplainant Pukhraj had filed a complaint against Ummaidram and six others alleging that they had

demolished the chabutri and the latrine over it on 12th of February 1958 between 9 and 10 A.M. and that the

chabutri was on the land belonging to the complainant and the demolition of the chabutri and latrine had

caused to the complainant the loss of Rs. 3 00/-. The complaint was for prosecuting the accused under

Sections 451,. 427 and 147, IPC. Ummaidram accused, took the plea that he was acting as Sarpanch of the

Gram Panchayat, Bilara, and he had directed the removal of the encroachment in that capacity in good faith.

The trial magistrate discharged the accused. In his opinion no prima facie case was made out as Ummaidram

acting as Sarpanch was discharging his duty as Sarpanch in widening the street. The learned magistrate

further held that in view of Section 79 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, he had not committed any

offence. He also held that: the other accused were labourers and were acting under the instructions of

Ummaidram and were not liable for any offence.

3. A Revision application was filed by Pukhraj against the accused in the Court of the Additional Sessions

Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that as Ummaid Ram was a Sarpanch who

could not be removed except by or with the consent of the State Government, he was entitled to the

protection under Section 197, CriPC The Revision, Application was dismissed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge.

4. The complainant has filed a Revision application in this Court challenging the order passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge No. 2.

5. Before we notice the divergence ofjudicial opinion on the point noted above we think it proper to decide

certain other points raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant before us.

6. The first point raised is that Ummaidram Sarpanch was holding a public office as a result of his election as a

Sarpanch and he could not be said to be a public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State.

The argument is that Section 197, Cri. P, C. is meant to apply to a Government servant and not to an elected

person holding office by virtue of his election.

7. Section 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act’ says that:

“The Sarpanch, every Panch, every officer and servant of a Panchayat shall be deemed to be public servants

within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.”

Thus, so far as the applicability of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, a Sarpanch is a public servant. Public servant has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code but it is provided in Section 4 that all words and expressions used in the Criminal Procedure Code and defined in the Indian Penal Code shall be deemed to have meanings respectively attributed to them by that Code. We shall not be travelling beyond permissible limits, if we construe the words ‘public servant’ in Section 197, CriPC as including Sarpanch who is deemed to be a public servant under the Indian Penal Code by virtue of Section 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. We cannot forget that the law has made Sarpanch a public servant.

8. Next it is argued that the Sarpanch cannot be said to be in the employment of the State Government, and as such, Section 197, CriPC is not applicable. It is argued that Section 197, CriPC should be limited in its application to such Government servants who are in the employment of the State Government. In this connection it is pointed out that Section 197 deals with cases only of persons employed in connection With the affairs of the Union or affairs of a State and no other. The word ‘employed’ in connection with the affai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document