Skip to content


Karuppiah thevan and anr. Vs. N. Krishna Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Mad437; (1939)1MLJ444
AppellantKaruppiah thevan and anr.
RespondentN. Krishna Pillai
Cases ReferredSatyanarayana v. Venkanna
Excerpt:
- .....namely, satyanarayana v. venkanna (1935) m.w.n. 1033, the offence being the snatching away of the minutes book by a member of a panchayat board from the member who was presiding at the meeting apparently with a view to prevent him from making an entry therein which was objected to. both the accused in the case are members and one is charged with having instigated the other to snatch away the minutes book. a reading of the complaint shows that from the beginning to the end reference is made to the official character of the various acts and occurrences that took place leading up to the snatching away of the minutes book. it may be that the snatching away of the minutes book is not a part of the official duties of a member of the panchayat board, but the question for decision is not.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Pandrang Row, J.

1. The offence alleged in this case is similar to the one that was the subject-matter of Crl. R.C. No. 389 of 1935, disposed of by K.S. Menon, J., namely, Satyanarayana v. Venkanna (1935) M.W.N. 1033, the offence being the snatching away of the minutes book by a member of a Panchayat Board from the member who was presiding at the meeting apparently with a view to prevent him from making an entry therein which was objected to. Both the accused in the case are members and one is charged with having instigated the other to snatch away the minutes book. A reading of the complaint shows that from the beginning to the end reference is made to the official character of the various acts and occurrences that took place leading up to the snatching away of the minutes book. It may be that the snatching away of the minutes book is not a part of the official duties of a member of the Panchayat Board, but the question for decision is not whether the particular act alleged was within the jurisdiction or competence of the Board but whether the act was done while he purported to act in discharge of his duties and whether the act can be reasonably related to the official character of the person who did it as in this case. It must be deemed to be an act done when purporting to act in his official capacity as a member. Otherwise it would mean that only in the case of authorised acts, which of course cannot amount to an offence, the prosecution would require the sanction of the local Government, thus making the provision of law, Section 227-A of the Madras Local Boards Act, unnecessary. Where the act is one which is strictly within the limits of one's official competence, no offence would be disclosed and it cannot therefore call for the exercise of any power of sanction on the part of the Government for prosecution. Taking a reasonable view of the facts alleged in this case it appears to me that this is a case in which the Magistrate was not entitled to take cognizance of the offence charged against the accused who are members of the Panchayat Board in the absence of any sanction of the prosecution by the Government. The proceedings before the Magistrate are therefore quashed. It will of course be open to the complainant in the case to obtain sanction of the Government and to file a fresh complaint if so advised.


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