Somasundaram, J. - (1.)THESE two appeals are by the State against the acquittal of the respondent who is the same in both the cases. The respondent was the President of the Panchayat Board of Poigai Village. By an order of the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards, dated 8th January, 1958 (Ex P -10), the respondent was removed from his office of presidentship. By the same order of removal the Vice -President was asked to take charge of the office of the President of the Panchayat Board. But the Vice -President replied to this communication stating his incapacity to take charge as he was blind. Hence the District Panchayat Officer in exercise of the powers delegated to him by the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards in his proceedings R.O.C. No. 5044/57, dated 29th June, 1951, appointed under Section 25(3) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, one Govindaswami, the complainant in this case, to be the temporary President of the Poigai Panchayat and he was directed by the said order to exercise the functions of the President until a new President is declared elected and he assumes office. Certain limitations on his powers were also mentioned in the order of appointment. The order appointing Govindaswami as temporary President was dated 9th March, 1958. It was received by Govindaswami on 12th March, 1958. Apparently he took charge immediately because there is no clear evidence as to when he took charge; it must have been either on 12th March, 1958, or later. He then asked the accused (the respondent herein) to hand over the keys and various other papers to him; but the respondent never did so. The complainant gave notice on 21st March, 1958, calling upon the respondent to hand over charge. It was duly served upon the respondent but still he continued to be recalcitrant and did not hand over charge. A second notice also was sent and it also remained not complied with. Thereupon, after informing the Deputy Panchayat Officer and other officers, the complainant launched his complaint on 27th May, 1958.
(2.)THE Sub -Magistrate of Vellore who heard the case convicted the respondent, finding him guilty of an offence not only under Section 116(3) of the Act but also under Section 116(2) as two cases were filed separately. In appeal the District Magistrate of Vellore acquitted the accused on the ground that a temporary President is not a person who can file the complaint. He has also held in paragraph 4 of his judgment that the prosecution is barred by limitation.
The reasoning of the District Magistrate is this. Under the provisions of Section 103 of the Act, a complaint is to be made within three months of the commission of the offence either by the police, or by the executive authority or a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the Panchayat or executive authority; this is certainly not a case where the police has filed the complaint; this is not a case where the complainant has been expressly authorised in this behalf by the panchayat or executive authority to file a complaint. The next question is whether a temporary President falls within the definition of executive authority as that is the only other person competent to file a complaint under the provisions of Section 103.

"Executive authority" has been defined in Section 2, Clause (7) as follows:

2. (7) 'Executive authority' means -

(i) In the case of a panchayat having an executive officer, the executive officer and if there is no executive officer in charge, the President of the panchayat.

(3.)THE District Magistrate says that it is not mentioned in the complaint or in the evidence whether there was any executive authority appointed for this Panchayat Board or not. The complaint being made only by the temporary President appointed by the District Panchayat Officer, the District Magistrate finds that under Section 2(7) of the Act the President cannot include a temporary President or a Vice -President. He, therefore, holds that this complainant is not competent to file a complaint.