Skip to content


Gurappa Gugal and ors. Vs. State of Mysore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1969CriLJ826
AppellantGurappa Gugal and ors.
RespondentState of Mysore
Excerpt:
.....if, a person who does not belong to a particular backward class for which the elective office is reserved, and masquerades as a person belonging to said category and gets elected to the reserved office, it cannot but be said that such an act not only constitutes violation of statutory provisions of the panchayat raj act but also a fraud on the constitution. on facts, held, the petitioners have established beyond doubt that the second respondent who belongs to bcm a category played a fraud by making a false claim that he belongs to bcm b category and got elected as a member of the first respondent-gram panchayat from ward no.1 which was reserved for bcm b category. further, the petition filed for issue of writ of quo warranto against the second respondent is not barred by..........hegde the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the provision of section 87 of the code of criminal procedure is mandatory and a proclamation under that section ought to have been issued specifying not less than thirty days from the date of publishing of the proclamation for the appearance of the petitioners before the court. bat the magistrate has given thirty days time from the date of the proclamation which is evidently in contravention of the provision contained in section 37 of the code of criminal procedure.4. i find substance in the contention. at copy of the proclamation is filed. the relevant portion of the same reads as follows:proclamation is hereby made that the said...is required to appear before this court to answer the complaint within 30 days 'from this.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ahmed Ali Khan, J.

1. Identical point of law arises foe consideration in bath these revision petitions. Therefore both of them are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners were involved on a charge of murder in Criminal Case No. 165/2 of 1967 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Shorapur. Warrants were issued against them when it was stated by the police that they were absconding. Thereafter the Magistrate issued proclamations for the attachment of their property. Those proclamations are challenged by the petitioners in these revision petitions.

3. Mr. Hegde the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the provision of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory and a proclamation under that Section ought to have been issued specifying not less than thirty days from the date of publishing of the proclamation for the appearance of the petitioners before the Court. Bat the Magistrate has given thirty days time from the date of the proclamation which is evidently in contravention of the provision contained in Section 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. I find substance in the contention. At copy of the proclamation is filed. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows:

Proclamation is hereby made that the said...is required to appear before this Court to answer the complaint within 30 days 'from this date.' (Underlining here in single quotation marks-Ed) is mine).

It is thus clear that the thirty days time allowed by the Court was from the date of the proclamation and not from the date of its publication as envisaged by Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was obligatory that an absconding person should be given thirty days time from the date of publication of the proclamation for his appearance before the Court. Therefore the error committed by the Magistrate cannot be construed to be a mere irregularity which can be cured under Section 587 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. In the result the proclamation ordered is quashed, and these revision petitions are allowed.

6. Mr. Hegde the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the property of the petitioners have been attached. If that is so, the petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits resulting from this order quashing the proclamation.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //