K. BRAHMA SURAIAH & ANR. versus LAKSHMINARAYANA

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 26-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
, , 
A 
B 
c 
D 
K. BRAHMA SURAIAH & ANR. 
v. 
LAKSHMINARAYANA 
November 26, 1968 
[J. c. SHAH, v. RAMAswAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 
1959-Mysore 
Panchayat Secretaries' Powers and Duties Rules, 1961, r. 16-Rule pro-
viding that complaints and suits on behalf of Panclrtiyat to be filed lry 
Secretary-Private complaint whether can be filed for offence under s. 
220 of Act. 
A private complaint was lodged against the appellants for an offence 
under s. 220 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 
1959. Rule ·16 of the Mysore Panchayat Secretaries' Powers and Duties 
Ru)es, 1961 provided that the Secretary shall have power to file com-
plaints and suits on behalf of the Panchayat, and to ,conduct the proceed-
ings on its behalf and on the orders of the Panchayat. On their con-
viction the appellants went to the High Court and contended that in view 
of Rule 16 they could not be prosecuted on a private complaint. The 
High Court decided against them on the view that the said Rule did not 
preclude persons other than the Secretary from filing a complaint but it 
only debarred complaints being made by others on behalf of the Pan-
chayat. Against the High Court's judgment appeal by special leave was 
filed in this Court. 
HELD : (i) In the presence of r. 16 and fur the reasons given by 
this Court in K. M. Kanavfs case which dealt with similar provisions 
E 
under the Bombay Municipal Borough Act, 1925, it must be held that it 
was the Secretary of the Panchayat who alone was competent to file the 
complaint. 
F 
G 
H 
Section 213(3) of the Mysore Act is analogous to s. 23A(3) of the 
Bombay Act under which 
the offence 
fell in Kanavi's case. 
On a 
parity of reasoning it -could not be suggested that if there had been 
any contravention of 
s. 
213(3) 
any voter or member 
of the 
public could have filed a complaint in the matfer. The other provisions 
also of the Act which follow, namely, ss. 214 to 219 indicate that it was 
never contemplated that a complaint for an infringement or contravention 
of the prohibition contained therein could be lodged before a Magistrate 
having jurisdiction under s. 233 by any private individual in the presence 
of specific rule that the Secretary shall have the power to file a complaint 
on behalf of the Panchayat. Most of these sections i.e. ss. 217 and 218 
postulate infraction of orders of the Panchayat for which the Panchayat 
al.one would be interested in filing a complaint. Thus the scheme of the 
Act also supports the view that a complaint could be filed only under 
r. 16 of the Mysore Panchayat Secretaries' Powers and Duties Rules 1961 
and could not have been filed by a private complaint. [936 H-937 'c1 
K. M. Kanavi v. State <>f Mysare, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 821, followed and 
applied. 
(ii) The High Court was not right in saying that all offences com-
mitted under the various provisions contained in the Act would be cog-
nizable owing to the general powers conferred on police officer by 
s. 236 of the Act. The section gives only a limited power to the police 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 s.c.R: 
officer to effect arrest if an offence is committed in hls presence. The 
A 
present case moreover· did not relate to· the powers which a police officer 
could exercise in. respect of an offence uiider s. 220 of the Act but to 
the. question whether a private complaint could be filed. [S87 G-9'.38 CJ 
Public Prosecutor v. A. V. Ramiah, A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 392 referred to. 
(iii) The difficulty felt by the High Court that a Secretary who is 
subordinate· to the Chairman may find it embarrassing to file a complaint 
B 
against him can hardly be accepted as serious. The Secretary has to act 
on behalf of the Panchayat and it is the panchayat that would be vitally 
interested in preventing and stopping any contravention of the provisions 
of s. 220 of the Act. 
The Secretary 'acts on behalf of the Panchayat 
and the question of his subordination to any one of its office bearera is 
of no consequence. [938 DJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
c 
183 of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 30, 1966 of the Mysore High Court im: Criminal Revision 
Petition No. 384 of 1965. 
R. B. Datar, for the appellants. 
The respondent did not appear. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. 
This is an appeal by special leave from a judg- · 
ment of the Mysore High Court in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.