Order :

Anupama, petitioner No. 2 is the daughter of Bisweswar, petitioner No. 1. She was married to Premananda Panigrahi, son of Swetakumar Panigrahi (opposite party No. 1) on 23rd November, 1962. On 6-5-1984, 16-5-64 and 11-6-64, opposite party No. 1 Sled three applications before Dhruba Charan Das (opposite party No. 2) who is the Sarpanch of Kaintragarh Gram Panchayat alleging unchastity and immorality against Anupama and asking for an enquiry as to whether she was at her father's place or had gone away to other places on certain dates. The ultimate relief sought was to give a certified copy of the report of enquiry to opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 entertained the applications and directed enquiries into the allegations. Petitioner No. 1 protested against such enquiry as affecting the reputation of his daughter and himself and requested that if at all an enquiry was to be made, it should be done in camera at the residence of the Sarpanch and not in public so that the prestige of the family might not be at stake. Opposite party No. 2 got evidence recorded through other members of the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners who were members of a conservative Brahmin society were scandalised. Petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Athmallik against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 under Ss. 500 and 500/109, I.P.C. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate held :

"From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 I am satisfied that P.W. 1 and his daughter, Anupama have been defamed by accused Swetakumar unnecessarily. Accused Swetakumar has no authority to question the chastity of his daughter-in-law so publicly as made above. On account of accused Sweta Kumar's initiative the allegations contained in his petitions have been given publicity and that there is no doubt about it."

The finding of the learned Magistrate so far as the Sarpanch is concerned is as follows :

"I find reason to believe that he has not the petitions enquired into without bad intention. On the other hand accused Dhruba Charan Das acted in good faith in discharge of his duties as a Sarpanch for the well-being of P.W. 1 (petitioner No. 1) and accused Swetakumar. In such circumstances, he cannot be deemed to have abetted the offence of defamation. Further sanction of the State Government as contemplated under S. 197, Criminal P.C. has not been obtained by P.W. 1 (petitioner No. 1) to criminally prosecute him in the capacity of a Sarpanch as he is a public servant under the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1948 ... … …

… … … … … …

Hence the complaint petition is not maintainable against accused Sarpanch, Dhruba Charan Das. Therefore, accused Dhruba Charan Das is entitled to discharge."

On the aforesaid finding, the Sarpanch was discharged under S. 253(1), Criminal P.C. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 2-9-1984 discharging the Sarpanch.

(2) Mr. Mohanty advanced two contentions :

(i) that sanction was not necessary under S. 197, Criminal P.C. for prosecution of the Sarpanch; and

(ii) that the finding of the S. D. M. that the Sarpanch acted in good faith in discharge of his duties for the well-being of P.W. 1 and accused Swetakumar is not correct. These contentions require careful examination. Section 197, Criminal P.C., lays down that when any public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of a State Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the, discharge of his official duty, no Court can take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the State Government in case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of a State.

Section 36 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act recognizes a Sarpanch who is the member of a Gram Panchayat as a public servant. It is unnecessary in this case to examine the contention of Mr. Mohanty that a Sarpanch is removable without the sanction of the State Government. The judgeme