S.S. BYAS, J—By this revision, the accused who is an ex-ruler of the erst while State of Mewar challanges the validity and legality of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated June 15, 1979.

2. Briefly recalled, the facts giving rise to this revision-petition are that the complainant Balwant Singh, who is a non-petitioner in this revision-petition submitted a complaint in writing against the accused in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (2), Udaipur in June 1977. It was averred therein that the temple of Iklingnath situate in Kailashpuri district Udaipur was declared a public trust by the Assistant Commissioner Deovsthan, Udaipur on May 30, 1976. It was further declared a public trust by the Commissioner, Deovsthan on February 25, 1977. The accused, who is an ex-ruler of the erstwhile State of Mewar is the working trustee of the said trust. He is also managing the affairs of the trust. The complainant is a follower of the duty of Shri Iklingnath and is, therefore interested in the management of the trust. The trust has vast movable and immovable assets The income of the trust runs in thousands of rupees per month. The accused has not complied with the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (for short the Act ) and the Rules made thereunder. A list of the acts and omissions was given in the complaint to show how the provisions of the Act and the Rules were breached. According to the complainant, the acts and omissions of the accused are punishable under section 70 of the Act. It was further alleged that the complainant approached the Assistant Commissioner, Deovsthan to obtain his sanction to launch prosecution against the accused. The Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated April 6, 1977 accorded the sanction. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons against the accused. The accused put appearance and submitted an application on December 7. 1977 raising a number of objections therein that the cognizance of the offence was wrongly taken and the accused was wrongly summoned to face the trial. One of the objections raised by him relates to the validity of the sanction accorded by the Assistant Commissioner, Deovsthan dated April 6, 1977. The learned Magistrate heard the parties and by his order dated January 30, 1977 up held the objections of the accused relating to the invalidity of sanction and thereafter dropped the proceedings. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the sanction of the Assistant Commissioner dated April 6, 1977 was no sanction in the eye of law and did not comply with the provisions of section 75 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved against the said order of the learned Magistrate, the complainant went in revision which was decided on June 15, 1979 by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. He allowed the revision and set-aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated January 30, 1977. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the question whether the sanctioning authority applied or failed to apply his mind to the relevant papers put before him was essentially a question of evidence and should be decided after taking the evidence of both the parties on this point. Feeling aggrieved with the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the accused had come up in revision.

3. The complainant despite service of notice did not put appearance in this Court. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Mr. Mathur learned counsel for the accused submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not valid in view of the fact that the trust Shri Ikling nath is not a public trust. It was submitted that the findings of the Assistant Commissioner declaring the temple of Shri Iklingnath as public trust under section 19 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 have been set aside in a regular civil suit filed by the accused in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the Act. A copy of the judgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document