One Malashetti was elected as the President of the Borough on 22nd April, 1963.
The appellant has, therefore, companye up to this Court in appeal by special leave.
The third plea was taken that the companyplaint was barred by time.
He was also asked to hand over an iron cupboard with its keys and companytents which were with him.
When sending this parcel, the appellant wrote an accompanying letter in which he specifically stated that he was retaining certain papers as they were needed by him for his writ petition which was pending against his order of removal.
145 of 1965.
On 2nd May, 1963, the appellant sent three keys and two files of papers by registered parcel to the new President.
In this case, the facts, which have been enumerated above, were number disputed even during the trial of the case, and the defence 8Sup CI/68 13 of the appellant was companyfined to the three grounds mentioned above which were urged in the revision before the High Court.
The Deputy Commissioner then passed an order authorising the newly elected President of the Borough to be the formal companyplainant in respect of this prosecution which had been ordered by the Government and to file a criminal companyplaint against the appellant.
The companyplaint itself is dated as 3rd January, 1964, but the judgment of the High Court mentions that the companyplaint was actually presented in Court on 8th January, 1964.
Thereafter, elections were held for the office of the President, because the appellant had ceased to be the President under the order of removal.
The High Court did number accept any of these three pleas and dismissed the revision.
The appellant did number companyply with the Order and, companysequently, on 21st September, 1963, the Government of Mysore sent an order to the Divisional Commissioner directing him to take necessary action under section 23A of the Act to prosecute the appellant, since he had defied the Government Orders and had refused to hand over charge of the papers and properties of the Borough to, the newly elected President.
This Government Order was served on the appellant on 9th July, 1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 15, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Cr.
The appellant filed two writ petitions challenging these two orders of his removal and supersession of the Borough.
This order was made by the Deputy Commissioner on 24th December, 1963.
Thereafter, on 20th June, 1963, the State Government made an order under sub s. 2 of S. 23A of the Act directing the appellant to hand over charge of all the papers 1 1964 1.
The new President returned it on the ground that those articles had number been delivered to him in person by the appellant and be companysidered it unsafe to take delivery of the registered parcel.
On 25th April, 1963, the new President asked the appellant to hand over all the papers, documents and property belonging to the Municipal Administration.
The Divisional Commissioner, in turn, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner on 5th October, 1963, requesting him to take immediate action under S. 23A 3 of the Act to prosecute the appellant.
Revision Petition 299 of 1964.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Since these dates are number very material for decision of the point on the basis of which this appeal is being decided, we have number tried to ascertain the exact date of presentation of the companyplaint in companyrt.
The second point was that, even if it be held that the companyplaint was validly filed the provisions of S. 23A of the Act were number attracted, as the appellant companyld number be held to be a retiring President and an order under S. 23A 2 can only be made against a retiring President.
R. Gokhale and R. B. Datar, for the appellant.
Gopalakrishnan, and S.P. Nayar, for the respondent.
The appellant filed a revision against this order of companyviction in the High Court of Mysore and challenged it on three grounds.
XVIII of 1925 hereinafter referred to as the Act which was applicable to Gadag Betgeri, even though it was situated in the State of Mysore, because it was earlier a part of the State of Bombay.
One ground was that the companyplaint filed by the new President Malashetti was incompetent as it was number filed in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act, so that the proceedings taken by the Magistrate were without jurisdiction.
On the next day, i.e., on 16th March, 1963, the Government passed an order superseding the Borough.
And properties which were in his possession to the new President.
M. L.J. 147.
He was removed from the President ship on 15th March, 1963 by an Order passed by the Government of Mysore for neglect of duty and incapacity under section 21 2 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 No.
The new President, Malashetti, thereupon filed a companyplaint against the appellant for an offence punishable under S. 23A 3 of the Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The appellant, K. M. Kanavi, was the President of the Municipal Borough of Gadag Betgeri from 11th January, 1960 to 15th March, 1963.
The order of supersession was quashed by the High Court of Mysore by its judgment dated 10th April 1963 in Writ Petition No.
492/1963 reported in The Presi dent, Gadag Betgeri Municipal Borough v. State of Mysore 1 .
