Skip to content


In Re: V.K. Subramania Mudali and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Criminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Mad297
AppellantIn Re: V.K. Subramania Mudali and ors.
Excerpt:
- - 1. this is a case in which the petitioner who was a member of the panchayat board of kaveripakkam and who was appointed temporary president for the purpose of election was charged before the sub-magistrate of arkonam for offences punishable under section 208(2) and (3), local boards act, in that he continued to exercise the functions of temporary president even after the election of the president and for failure to hand over one pie being the panchayat fund to the newly elected president. as the nature of the acts themselves clearly show this so far as they are concerned, they are clearly protected by the provisions of section 227(a), madras local boards act......was entertained by the magistrate without any sanction for the prosecution being given by the local government as required by law; even an application by the accused to the magistrate to drop the proceedings in view of the absence of sanction of the government was dismissed. the magistrate's view is, in my opinion, wrong as this is a case in which the sanction of the government was absolutely necessary as a pre-requisite of taking cognizance of the alleged offence. the acts or omissions alleged against the petitioner in this case were with reference to something intimately related to his position as a member of the panchayat board or as sometime temporary president of the board. the sub-magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the alleged offences in the absence of government.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Pandrang Row, J.

1. This is a case in which the petitioner who was a member of the Panchayat Board of Kaveripakkam and who was appointed temporary president for the purpose of election was charged before the Sub-Magistrate of Arkonam for offences punishable under Section 208(2) and (3), Local Boards Act, in that he continued to exercise the functions of temporary president even after the election of the president and for failure to hand over one pie being the panchayat fund to the newly elected president. It is extraordinary to find that such a complaint was entertained by the Magistrate without any sanction for the prosecution being given by the Local Government as required by law; even an application by the accused to the Magistrate to drop the proceedings in view of the absence of sanction of the Government was dismissed. The Magistrate's view is, in my opinion, wrong as this is a case in which the sanction of the Government was absolutely necessary as a pre-requisite of taking cognizance of the alleged offence. The acts or omissions alleged against the petitioner in this case were with reference to something intimately related to his position as a member of the Panchayat Board or as sometime temporary president of the Board. The Sub-Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the alleged offences in the absence of Government sanction. The proceedings before him in C.C. No. 727 of 1938 are therefore quashed.

2. Cr.R.C. No. 814 of 1938 : - This is in a way connected with Cr.R.C. No. 813 of 1938. In the present case, no less than seven persons were charged with offences punishable under Sections 208(2) and (3) and 210, Local Boards Act. The petitioners 1 to 4 who are accused 1 to 4 in the Court below are members of the Panchayat Board of Kaveripakkam and the acts which are alleged to constitute the offences are acts which, were performed by them while purporting to act in discharge of their duties as members of the Board. As the nature of the acts themselves clearly show this so far as they are concerned, they are clearly protected by the provisions of Section 227(a), Madras Local Boards Act. As there was no sanction of the Local Government for their prosecution, the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance] of the offences so far as they are concerned. The proceedings so far as these persons, accused 1 to 4, before the Magistrate are concerned, are quashed.

3. As regards the remaining petitioners, i.e. accused 5 to 7 in the Court below are concerned, it has not been shown that they are entitled to any protection or that the prosecution against them requires the previous sanction of any authority. It cannot therefore be said that the Magistrate was wrong in dismissing their application to drop the proceedings so far as they were concerned, and there can be no interference so far as accused 5 to 7 in the Court below are concerned. It will be open to them to contend before the Magistrate that the abetment alleged against them is no offence at all, and indeed to put forward any other defence that may be available to them.


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