the high companyrt was of the view that this rule did number preclude persons other than the secretary from filing a companyplaint but it only debarred companyplaints being made by others on behalf of the panchayat.
40 and in default to undergo 7 days and 5 days simple imprisonment respectively.
the appellants who were the vice chairman and the chairman of the keladi village panchayat were convicted under the aforesaid section and sentenced to pay a fine of pa.
appellant number 2 also bid at the same auction for the radio.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated march 30 1966 of the mysore high companyrt in criminal revision petition number 384 of 1965.
50 and pa.
the secretary shall have power to file complaints and suits on behalf of the panchayat and to companyduct the proceedings on its behalf under the orders of the panchayat.
the appellant was companyvicted and sentenced to pay a fine of rs.
a private companyplaint was filed against the appellants alleging that they gave bids at an auction held at the village panchayat and appellant number 1 purchased a radio belonging to the panchayat for pa.
kanavi v. the state of mysore 1 the appellant kanavi who was the president of municipal borough of gadag betgeri had been removed from presidentship.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 183 of 1966.
in k.m.
number rule 16 may be reproduced.
pursuant to orders made by the divisional companymissioner and the deputy companymissioner the new president filed a companyplaint against kanavi for an offence punishable under s. 23a 3 of the bombay act.
he refused to hand over the charge of all the papers and property which were in his possession relating to the borough to the new president in spite of an order made by the government under s. 23a of the bombay municipal boroughs act 1925 hereinafter called the bombay act to that effect.
b. datar for the appellants.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by grover j this is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the mysore high companyrt in which the only point involved is whether a private companyplaint companyld be entertained for the companymission of an offence under s. 220 of the mysore village panchayats local boards act 1959 hereinafter called the act.
the respondent did number appear.
