JUDGMENT

S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. - The short point involved for determination in this appeal is with regard to the interpretation of the expression the public servant concerned appearing in Section 195(1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The brief facts of the case which led to this controversy are as follows:

2. It is the admitted case that on 11.4.1968 a proceeding was initiated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Gyanpur under Section 145 of the Code in respect of a dispute over Plot No. 338 situated in village Balapur Rohi and it ended in favour of Smt. Ram Piari on whose behalf one Doodnath represented the matter as her agent. By an Order dated 11.4.1968 one Ram Lakhan and his party, who were the respondents in the proceeding were restrained from interfering with the possession of Smt. Ram Piari. Ram Lakhan died without leaving any issue. There were six respondents besides Ram Lakhan of whom two were his brothers and the remaining his nephews. It appears that there was a civil litigation between the parties, but we are not concerned in the present appeal about that civil dispute. It is stated that the respondents with the full know