LADU RAM Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY his order dated the 5th July 1966 the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur district. Jaipur has recommended that the order of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby he dismissed the complaint for want of sanction be set aside.

(2.) THE facts which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of this reference briefly stated are these. Ladu Ram in his complaint claimed that he was the owner of a certain plot of land near Tonk Road and had fixed his slabs and pattis therein. The chairman. Municipal Board, Chaksu and four other members on account of political rivalry served him with a notice on 10th November 1964 to the effect that he had trespassed into the land of the Municipal Board and was directed to remove the 'pattis' and slabs he had affixed by 10 A. M. of 11th November 1964 failing which the Municipal Board would itself get them removed. It appears that Laduram neglected to comply with this order, and Chairman Rameshwar and four other members of the Municipal Board, Chaksu removed or caused the removal of the 'pattis' and the 'katlas. ' thereupon Laduram instituted a complaint on 3rd December 1964 under Sections 379 (theft) and 427 (mischief) of the Indian Penal Code, cognizance whereof was taken by the Additional Munsif-Magistrate Jaipur Dist. , Jaipur. An argument was raised before him that the complaint was not competent unless there was a sanction as envisaged by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the accused were public servants not removable from their service save by or with the sanction of the State Government. This objection prevailed with the learned magistrate, against which a revision was preferred before the Additional Sessions judge. Jaipur District Jaipur For the reasons that the powers of removal were delegated by the State Government to the Director of Local Bodies by certain notifications and also because a Chairman was removable by means of a vote of no-confidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was persuaded to hold that no sanction as required by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary, and has made the recommendation that the learned Additional Munsifmagistrate's order be set aside. 2a. I have heard Mr. Vishinlal Thakur in support of this reference and Mr. Tikku opposing it. The learned Deputy Government Advocate is indifferent to it.

(3.) IT is not controverted that the Chairman and the members of the Municipal board, Chaksu are public servants within the moaning of Section 21 of the Indian penal Code by virtue of the provisions of Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities act 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). The emphasis laid before me by Mr. Thakur is that because a Chairman of a Municipal Board or Council, as the case may be, can be removed by a vote of no-confidence, it cannot be said that he is not removable save by or with the sanction of the State Government. In support of this contention Mr. Thakur invited my attention to a decision of the Mysore High court in The State v. Chikkavenkatappa, AIR 1965 My 253, wherein the learned judge held that.