K. Subba Rao, C.J.
1. This is an appeal against the order of our learned brother, Bhimasankaram, J. dismissing the. application filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Kakinada, from proceeding with C. C. No. 297 of 1956 on his file.
2. The facts are clearly and succinctly stated by our learned brother, Bhimasankaram J. in his order. They are :
3. The appellant is the accused in C. C. No. 297 of 1956 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. He was elected as a member of the village panchayat of Yeleswaram, East Goda-vari District, at a general election which took place on 23-6-1956. He was appointed by the District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada, by an order dated 30-6-1956 to act as the temporary President of the meeting of all the members so elected for the purpose of co-opting a woman member as prescribed by Section 10-A of the Madras Village Panchayats Act (Act X of 1950). The meeting was held on 11-7-1956 and the appellant declared one T. Nukamma as having been duly co-opted and made an entry to that effect in the minutes book.
The first respondent, who was also one of the Members elected to the panchayat, filed a complaint against the appellant under Sections 167 and 468, I.P.C. alleging that as a matter of fact, one Samanthula Venkayamma, wife of Ramanna, must have been declared elected as she was the only person duly nominated and seconded and that the appellant fraudulently recorded in the minutes hook that Nukamma was elected. The appellant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that it contravened the provisions of Sections 103, 107 and 108 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act.
Before the learned Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that sanction was necessary under Section 106 of the Panchayats Act. The learned Judge dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not he allowed to be invoked in cases where the Court's revi-sional jurisdiction could be exercised, though, incidentally, he made some observations in respect of the contentions raised by the appellant. Hence, the appeal.
4. The question raised is that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence except with the previous sanction of the Government. The appel-llant could raise this objection more appropriately be-fore the Magistrate in whose Court the complaint was filed. If the objection was overruled and if the case went against him, he could if so advised take proper proceedings try way of appeal or otherwise to get that judgment vacated. Where the appellant has an effective remedy, it is common place that this Court will not, ordinarily exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.
We do not think there are any special or extraordinary circumstances in this case to entertain the, petition. We, therefore, agree with the learned Judge who was right in dismissing the writ petition. How-ever, we must make it clear that the observations made by the learned Judge should not weigh with the Magistrate in disposing of the objections raised, for the learned Judge did not purport to decide finally the question raised before him.
5. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of the first respondent. Advocate's fee Rs. 50/-.