( 1. ) A very short question has arisen in this case but it is of some importance. Chandra Gopal was the President of the Municipality. Khategoan. A complaint was filed by Mr. Pendse Advocate of Kannod alleging that through his subordinate staff the opponent has forcibly removed some material from a plot of land belonging to him in his possession. A complaint under Sections 447. 427 and 379 was lodged by Mr. Pendse and Chandra Gopal was one of the accused persons.

( 2. ) ON 11-1-1967. the learned Magistrate held that Chandra Gopal being the President of the Municipality would be deemed to be a councillor and was not removable from his office except by the State Government under Section 41 of the M. P. Municipalities Act. As there was no sanction by the State under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chandra Gopal could not be prosecuted. The trial Court therefore discharged him. A revision was filed by the applicant against this order but was dismissed. The applicant has now come up in revision before the High Court.

( 3. ) IT is a common ground that Chandra Gopal was a councillor and became President of the Municipality Khategoan. There is no dispute that he was a public servant at the relevant time. The only dispute is whether he was removable from the office by the State Government as contemplated under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Magistrate under the circumstances of the case held that sanction would be necessary.

( 4. ) IT has been contended by the applicants counsel that Section 197 will apply when the accused is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government as contemplated in Section 197. That means that if there is any other mode of removal in addition. Section 197 would not apply.

( 5. ) HE placed reliance on a decision reported in State v. Chikka Venkatappa AIR 1965 Mys 253. In that case sanction was considered with respect to the prosecution of the President or Vice-President of the Municipal Council. Under the Mysore Town Municipalities Act No. 22 of 1951. they are removable not only by or with sanction of the Govern" ment but also by Municipal Council itself. In that connection it was observed that the use of the word "remove" in Section 23 (7) of the Bombay Municipal Act 3 of 1901 and use of the words "vacate his office" in Section 23 (9) of the Mysore Act do not make any difference for the purpose of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was further held by his Lordship that the word "remove" should have the dictionary meaning. remove means lake away that is taking away from the office of the President or Vice-President and it may happen in various cases.

( 6. ) SIMILAR is also the view express in Vishwamohan v. Mahadu. In that case, it was held that under Section 23 (7) of the Bombay District Municipal Act. a vice-president can be removed from his office not only by the Municipality but also by the State Government although the latter would be able to remove him only in certain circumstances. It has been held that in a complaint case the Magistrate should not be in need of a sanction of the State Government since the accused is not removable from his office of vice-president save by or with the sanction of the State Government but is also removable by the Municipality as and when it pleases.

( 7. ) NOW, the above two cases undoubtedly hold that when there are other ways of removal of the President, Section 197 is not attracted. There is, however a contrary view taken in Pukhraj v. Ummaidram. . which is a Division Bench case. In that case the question was about the removal of a Sarpanch. The argument made before their Lordships was that a Sarpanch was liable to be removed in a number of ways and it is only under Section 17 (4) or Section 73. that the State Government can take action for removal and in other case, the removal is caused by force of law on action taken by the authorities subordinate to the State Government. Their