S.S. Byas, .J - (1.)By this revision, the accused who is an ex-ruler of the erstwhile State of Mewar challenges the validity and legality of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated June 15, 1979.
(2.)Briefly recalled, the facts given rise to this revision-petition are that complainant Balwant Singh, who is a non-petitioner in this revision-petition submitted a complaint in writing against the accused in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (2), Udaipur in June, 1977. It was averred therein that the temple of Iklingnath situate in Kailasbpuri district Udaipur was declared a public trust. DY the Assistant Commissioner Deovstan, Udaipur on May 30, 1976. It was further declared a public trust by the Commissioner, Deovstan on February 25, 1977 The accused, who is an exruler of the erstwhile State of Mewar is the working trustee of the said trust. He is also managing the affairs of the trust. The complainant is a follower of the deity of Shri Iklingnath and is, therefore, intercepted in the management of the trust. The trust has vast movable and immovable assets. The income of the trust runs ill thousands of rupees per month. The accused has not complied with the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (for short the Act) and the Rules made there under-A list of the acts and omisions was given in the complaint to show how the provisions of the Act and the Rules were breached. According to the complainant, the acts and omissions of the accused are punishable under section 70 of the Act. It was further alleged that the complainant approached the Assistant Commissioner, Deovstan to obtain his sanction to launch prosecution against 1 he accused. The Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated April 6, 1977 accorded the sanction. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons against the accused. The accused put appearance and submitted an application on December 7, 1971 raising a number of objections therein that the cognizance of the offence was wrongly taken and the accused was wrongly summoned to face the trial. One of the objections raised by him relates to the validity of the sanction accorded by the Assistant Commissioner, Deovstan dated April 6, 1977. The learned Magistrate heard the parties and by his order dated January 3u, 1977 up held the objections of the accused relating to the invalidity of section and thereafter dropped the proceedings. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the sanction of the Assistant Commissioner dated April 6, 1977 was no sanction in the eye of law and did not comply with the provisions of Section 75 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved against the said order of the learned Magistrate, the complainant went in revision which was decided on June 15, 1979 by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. He allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated January 30, 1977. The learned Sessions judge was of the opinion that the question whether the sanctioning authority applied or failed to apply his mind to the relevant paper put before him was essentially a question of evidence and should be decided after taking the evidence of both the parties on this point. Feeling aggrieved with the said order of the learned Sessions Judge the accused has come up in revision.
(3.)The complainant despite service of notice did not put appearance in this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.