Sharma, J—The applicant Prabhu Dayal is being prosecuted in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur under sec. 166 and 504 I.P.C. on the complaint of one Milapchand.

2. Summons were issued to the applicant and when he appeared he raised an objection that the prosecution was bad because no sanction of the State Government u/s 197 Cr.P.C. had been obtained by the complainant. He also raised an objection that the prosecution was bad by virtue of sec. 79 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties over-ruled the objections on the ground that at that stage there was nothing to show that the accused had committed the offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The applicant went in revision and the learned Additional District Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur agreed with the learned Trial Magistrate and dismissed the application. The applicant has now come in revision to this court.

3. I have heard Sri S.M. Mehta on behalf of the accused applicant and Sri S.C., Agarwal on behalf of the complainant. It ha3 been argue 1 by Mr. Mehta that under sec, 78 (1) of the Act, the applicant being a Sarpanch of a Panchayat under the Act was a public servant within the meaning of sec. 21 I, P. C. and be was not removable save with the sanction of the State Government. It was also argued that the applicant was a judge within the meaning of sec. 21 read with sec. 19 I.P.C. and his act was in the discharge of his official duty. Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. was therefore necessary for the prosecution of the applicant. It was further argued that u/s 79 of the Act, there could be no prosecution of the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon two rulings of their lordships of the Supreme Court on the point of the applicability of sec. 197 Cr. P.C. They are in cases of Shreekatinth Ramayya Munipalli vs. State of Bombay (1) and Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari (2).

5. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Amrit Singh vs. State of Pepsu (3) and Premnarain Mohanlal Dubey vs. State (4). It was argued that sec. 197 Cr.P.C. applies only when the public servant concerned is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of a State Government or the Central Government. It was argued that in the present case the applicant being a Sarpanch of a Panchayat under the Act could be removed from his office also by the Chief Panchayat Officer in case the vote of no-confidence was passed against him and he did not resign within three days from the date of the passing of the no-confidence motion. It is argued that the applicant cannot therefore be said to be a public servant who was not if movable from his office save by or with the sanction of a State Government or the Central Government. Further, it was argued that the act complained of against the applicant was not committed by the applicant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty and consequently sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary. As regards the applicability of sec. 79 of the Act, it was argued that it applies only when the prosecution, suitor other legal proceedings are in respect of anything lawfully and in good faith done under the Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder. It was argued that the applicant was not doing anything lawfully and in good faith under the Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder and therefore he is not protected by sec. 79 of the Act.

6. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. It is not necessary for me to decide in this case whether the applicant was a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of a State Government or the Central Government because to my mind the applicant comes within the definition of a judge u/s 19 I.P.C. Sec. 19 I.P.C. says that the word Judge denotes not only every person wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document