JASWANTSINGHJI FATHEHSINGHJI THAKORE Vs. KESUBA HARISINH DIPSINHJI
LAWS(BOM)-1954-4-6
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on April 15,1954

JASWANTSINGHJI FATHEHSINGHJI THAKORE Appellant
VERSUS
KESUBA HARISINH DIPSINHJI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

JASWANTSINGHJI JU DEO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1970-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKABEN NAVNITLAL DAVE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1987-10-3] [REFERRED]
JANAK KUMARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1974-6-3] [REFERRED]
BALAN NAIR VS. BHAVANI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-1986-11-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Thakore Shri Jaswantsinghji Fate-singhji (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was a Ruler of an Indian State known as Kho-dal. On 26-5-1948, the Khodal State merged with the Union of India and the territory thereof now forms part of the Bombay State. The petitioner claims that he is recognised under Article 362 of the Constitution of India as a Ruler. Opponents Nos. l and 2 claiming, respectively, to be the wife and son of the petitioner, filed an application under Section 488, Criminal P. C. in the Court of the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj, for an order that they be awarded proper maintenance from the petitioner. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Magistrate that he was a 'Ruler' within the meaning of the Constitution of India, and the proceedings taken against him in the Court of the Resident Magistrate were in the absence of sanction of the Central Government incompetent. In support of that contention reliance was placed upon Sen. II of the White Paper, which gives a list of the former Indian Slates which merged with the Province of Bombay, and upon Article 4 of the agreement between the petitioner and the Governor General of India dated 26-5-1948. Article 4 provided :
"Thakorshi, his wife, his mother, the heir apparent and his wife shall be entitled to all personal privileges enjoyed by them within or outside the territories of the State immediately before 15-8-1947." Reliance was also placed upon Section 197A, Criminal P. C., which was added by the Leigslature by Act I of 1951 with a view to effectuate the agreement,1? entered into by the Government with the Rulers of Indian States. Sub-section (2) of Section 197A provides that 'no Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by the Elder of a former Indian State except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.'

(2.)The learned trial Magistrate held that the petitioner was not charged with having committed an 'offence', and therefore 'the previous sanction of the Central Government' to the institution of the application was not necessary and the proceedings under Section 488, Criminal P. C., were competent against the petitioner, and that he had jurisdiction to entertain the application.
(3.)Against the order passed by the trial Magistrate, an application in revision was filed in the Court of Session at Nadiad by the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge held that an application under Section 43S, Criminal P. C., did not amount to 'accusation of an offence within the meaning of Section 197A, Criminal P. C.', and therefore the trial Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the opponents and sanction of the Central Government was not a condition precedent to the opponents' making an application'. On that view the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has come to this Court in revision.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.