Skip to content


Bethambhotlu Subbayya of Tangutur Vs. Pothula Venkata Narasayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Mad598; (1939)IMLJ830
AppellantBethambhotlu Subbayya of Tangutur
RespondentPothula Venkata Narasayya
Excerpt:
.....he was acting as president from november, 1936. the complainant was elected president at a meeting held on 29th may, 1937, hut the petitioner disputed the validity of the meeting and declined to hand over charge of the office to the complainant till 10th july, 1937. he has therefore been convicted under section 208(3) of the madras local boards act for failure to hand over charge to the complainant but the offence was committed by the petitioner while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty and section 227-k of the madras local boards act provides that no court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the local government......panchayat board of tarigutur and owing to a vacancy in the office of the president he was acting as president from november, 1936. the complainant was elected president at a meeting held on 29th may, 1937, hut the petitioner disputed the validity of the meeting and declined to hand over charge of the office to the complainant till 10th july, 1937. he has therefore been convicted under section 208(3) of the madras local boards act for failure to hand over charge to the complainant but the offence was committed by the petitioner while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty and section 227-k of the madras local boards act provides that no court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the local government. there was no sanction in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The petitioner was the Vice-President of the Panchayat Board of Tarigutur and owing to a vacancy in the Office of the President he was acting as President from November, 1936. The complainant was elected President at a meeting held on 29th May, 1937, hut the petitioner disputed the validity of the meeting and declined to hand over charge of the office to the complainant till 10th July, 1937. He has therefore been convicted under Section 208(3) of the Madras Local Boards Act for failure to hand over charge to the complainant but the offence was committed by the petitioner while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty and Section 227-K of the Madras Local Boards Act provides that no Court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Local Government. There was no sanction in this case and the trial is illegal. The Conviction of the petitioner is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded.


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