- (1.) THIS is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate, and arises under the following circumstances: -
(2.) IT appears that Shri Mohanlal, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jawar, Tehsil Girwal, made a report to the Station House Officer Tiddi on the 6th October, 1957, to the effect that while he and the other Panchas of the Gram Panchayat were assembled at a meeting of the Panchayat at 6-30 P. M. , a number of persons in all seven, whose names were mentioned in the report, came to the meeting and abused the Panchas and threatened to beat them. The Sarpanch, therefore, requested the said officer to make the necessary inquiry and take proper legal steps against the persons named in the report. The Station House, Officer, registered a case under sec. 147 and sec. 353 I P. G. and eventually came to the conclusion that the report was and unfounded and submitted a final report under sec 173 Cr. P. C. to the Magistrate concerned to aforesaid effect. This report was accepted by the Magistrate. Thereafter, the police made a complaint against Shri Mohanlal in the court of the First Class Magistrate, Udaipur, under sec. 183 of the Indian Penal Code. Among other pleas raised by the Sarpanch, with which we are not concerned in this revision, he contended that the court could not take any cognizance of the complaint made against him except with the previous sanction of the State Government. The learned Magistrate repelled this objection. Thereupon, the petitioner went in revision to the learned Additional District Magistrate Udaipur. The learned Additional District Magistrate has made this reference with the recommendation that, in his opinion, sanction of the State Government was a prerequisite condition to the prosecution of the petitioner. I have heard the learned Deputy Government Advocate. I have also perused the report, Ex. P. 1 made by the petitioner Mohanlal which has culminated in the present prosecution. The sole question for determination in this reference is whether the report made by the petitioner was made by one of the classes persons mentioned in sec. 197 Cr. P. C. and further whether that report was made while he purported to act in the discharge of his official duties; for I have no doubt if these conditions are fulfilled, the prosecution of the petitioner without the previous sanction of the State would be entirely illegal. Now, I am not quite sure whether the learned District Magistrate was correct when he observed that the petitioner was acting as a judge when he was transacting business at the meeting, dated the 6th October, 1957, for it does not appear from the material which is on the record whether the Sarpanch and the other Panchas were doing any judicial business at the time. I have however, no doubt that the Sarpanch and for that matter the other Panchas were public servants. Reference may be made in this connection to sec. 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, (Act No. XXI of 1953), which lays down that the Sarpanch, every Panch and every officer and sarvant of a Panchayat and a Tehsil Panchayat shall be deemed to be pubilc servants within the meaning of sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code. I would then invite attention to sec. 17 (4) of the Act according to which a Panch, Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch is made removable by the State Government It has also been provided in sub-sec. (5) that the decision of the State Government on any matter arising under sec. 17 (including the removal of the member of the Panchayat) is final and is not liable to be questioned in any court of law. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner Shri Mohanlal was a public servant, who was not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government within the meaning of sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The next question is whether the report made by the petitioner was made while he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It is obvious from the report Ex. P. 1 that the case of the petitioner when he made that report was that he and the other Panchas had met at a meeting to transact the business of the Panchayat on the 6th October, 1957, and that the quorum was complete, and that it was at that time that the persons named in the report came to the meeting and abused the Panchas and threatened to beat them. In these circumstances, it is easy enough to see that the report made by the petitioner was clearly connected with the discharge of his official duties, I would invite reference in this connection to my decision in Hariram vs. B. P. Scod (1 ). wherein after a fairly elaborate discussion of the case law on the point, I held that the policy of the legislature in enacting sec. 197 Cr. P. C. was to afford reasonable protection to public servants acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. I further held, however,that this protection was limited and that it could be claimed only where the acts complained against and alleged to have been done by the public servants are or can be said to be reasonably connected with the discharge of their official duties and are not merely a cloak for doing an objectionable act. It was also pointed out that the circumstance that while so acting the public servant concerned acted in excess of his duty would not be a sufficient ground for deprivation of such protection (for, that would be a matter on the merits) so long as there is a reasonable connection between the impugned act and the performance of the official duties. Finally, it was observed that whether a particular act could be said to be done in the exercise of official duty or in the purported exercise of such duty was essentially and substantially a question, which must be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case, and that it was neither easy not possible to lay down any hard and fast formula for the ascertainment of that question. Applying the principles enunciated above to the facts of the case in hand, I have no manner of hesitation in saying that the report made by the petitioner Mohanlal to the police in the present case was clearly reasonably connected with the purported discharge of his official duty. In fact, any other conclusion in the circumstances of this case, in my view, would be utterly wrong and indefensible. In this view of the matter, I hold that the prosecution of the petitioner under sec. 183 I. P. C. without the previous sanction of the State is illegal and 1 quash the proceedings in the court of the trial Magistrate accordingly. For the reasons mentioned above, this reference succeeds and is hereby accepted as above. I need scarcely add that it would be open to the aggrieved party to apply to the State for sanction to prosecute the petitioner and to prosecute him after such sanction is accorded.. ;