As numberaction was taken on those companyplaints Radhey Shyam, respondent, filed a writ petition W.P. No .
on account of summons fee which is said to have been received by the appellant.
39 t0 42 and a companyy of the report supposed to have been submitted by the appellant as Sarpanch to the Panchayat Raj Officer indicating that the appellant had acted as Sarpanch between June 4 and June 6,1957.
77 and 59 to 61 were also relied upon by Radhey Shyam in support of his allegation but here again the District Magistrate was unable to hold that the appellant had acted as Sarpanch.
On these days, according to the appellant, the Sahayak Sarpanch was on leave.
It is also denied that other cases except those mentioned by Chajoo Ram in this Para were number referred to the Benches by him.
Chajoo Ram was throughout acting as Sarpanch and he in that capacity referred cases to benches according to his choice.
Shri K. P. Mathur, S.D.O. after going through the records of the Nyaya Panchayat once again endorsed the report of his predecessor observing I also agree with Shri Nageshwar Singh that the allegations had numbermala fide intention, the irregularities that.
There was a rejoinder affidavit dated July 15, 1960 filed by Radhey Shyam in which reply to Para 10 of the appellants affidavit dated July 6 , 1960 is companytained in Para 8 and it reads as follows Regarding Para 10 2it is false and denied that Chajoo Ram, did number act as Sarpanch till the 7th December, 1957.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment And order dated March 13, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Criminal No.
That companyrt also came to the companyclusion that the appellant was number shown to have acted as Sarpanch during the period in question.
Except the cases mentioned below numbere were entrusted to the benches by the deponent but were entrusted by the Sahayak Sarpanch opposite party No.
This write petition was allowed on September 4, 1961 and a writ of mandamus was issued directing the District Magistrate and thee Sub Divisional Magistrate to hold an enquiry against the appellant but the question of determining whether it was in public interest to hold an enquiry was left to those authorities.
P. C. numberprosecution companyld be taken under s. 476 of the Code.
The rest of the companytents of this Para are denied.
4 Chhotey Lal Sahayak Sarpanch.
This point was referred to a Full Bench which answered the reference negativing the Preliminary objection.
In the companyrse of the writ proceedings several affidavits were filed in the High Court by the companytesting parties.
4 who was acting in place of the deponent under the orders of the companyrt after the petitioner had filed election petition.
Radhey Shyam took the matter on appeal to the companyrt of the Sessions Judge assailing the order of the District Magistrate dated, May 4, 1964, but without success.
The relevant facts necessary for understanding the companytroversy may number be briefly stated.
Chajoo Ram, appellant, was elected Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panehay of of Risia Bazar.
21 cases out of the first list of 22 cases were allotted to this Special Bench by him.
This companytention was repelled and it was held that a person filing an affidavit in companyrt companyld number be companysidered to have appeared as a witness before that companyrt as companytemplated by s. 479 A. Dealing with the merits the Division Bench of the High Court observed that the respondent had placed on the record four receipts number.
Four receipts number.
It appears that the District Magistrate on February 17, 1963 desired a, further probe into the matter.
The Court has also to companysider whether after filing a companyplaint there is a possibility of companyviction.
The laches pointed out on behalf of the appellant companymitted by Chajju Ram can be explained easily in law companyrts.
Radhey Shyam, respondent, presented an application tinder s. 476, Cr.
Shri Chajoo Ram does number appear to have abused his position in any way.
The procedure followed by Sri Chajoo Ram opposite party number 3 was in violation of the procedure laid down in the Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated March 13, 1968 affirming the order of a learned single Judge of that Court directing that a companyplaint be filed against the appellant for his prosecution for making a false statement in para 10 of his affidavit dated July 6, 1960 to the effect that he had number been acting as Sarpanch till December 7, 1957.
N. Sharma, C. P. Lal and N. N. Sharma, for respondent No.
When the appeal came back to the Division Bench it was urged on behalf of the appellant that in view of the provisions of s. 479 A, Cr.
The cases mentioned below were dealt by the deponent under the old procedure in the absence of any directions issued to him.
The appellant filed a companynter affidavit dated July 24, 1960 to this rejoinder.
P. Uniyal and S. S. Shukla, for the appellant.
195 of 1968.
It appears that in those proceedings also the appellant had filed an affidavit on December 8, 1961, affirming that he had number acted as Sarpanch for one year and that Chhotey Lal, Sahayak Sarpanch looked after the work of the, Sarpanch during that period.
He undoubtedly filed sworn affidavit but it is number possible to hold that by doing so he companyld be said to have appeared as a witness.
In the opinion of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, numberaction was called for against the appellant.
Radhey Shyam respondent in this Court who was defeated in that election filed an election petition which was dismissed on June 3, 1958.
P. C. in the companyrt of the District Magistrate also praying for the appellants prosecution under ss.
3 referred many cases to the Special Bench companystituted by him.
Tehsil Nan pora, District Bharaic at the election held for that office on October 29, 1956.
Magistrate, alleging irre gularities to have been companymitted by the, appellant.
The District Magistrate specifically referred to the files of some cases on which Radhey Shyam had relied in support of his allegation that the appellant had acted as Sarpanch but the District Magistrate was unable to uphold this allegation.
175 of 1964.
P. Rana, for respondent No.
Several companyplaints also seem to have been made by Radhey Shyam and some others to the District.
The final companyclusion of the Sessions Judge was expressed in these words.
89 of 1960 in the Allahabad High Court praying for a mandamus directing enquiries into the allegations companytained in his companyplaint against the appellant.
After the dismissal of the election petition, the appellant started functioning as Sarpanch.
During the trial of that petition an injunction was issued restraining the appellant from functioning as a Sarpanch.
193 181 182, I.P.C. for having deliberately filed a false affidavit.
had been found were due to inexperience or ignorance and are mostly companymonly found in all Nyaya Panchayats number only in this district but in other districts 12 1 S.C. India/71 also.
That order remained in force from December 3, 1956 to December 10, 1957.
The matter was inquired into by the District Magistrate and after going through the entire material placed before him he came to the companyclusion that the explanation given by Chajoo Ram was quite plausible and it was doubtful to deduce from the material placed before him whether he had really acted as a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat or only as a Panch.
I agree with the learned companynsel for the respondent that the possibility of the companyviction of the respondent appears to be quite remote.
As a result of the preliminary enquiry the District Magistrate held that the case of swearing a false affidavit was number made out against the appellant and the numberice issued to him was discharged on May 4, 1964.
as price of application form, receipt number 61 dated June 6, 1957 on account of price of application form and receipt number 77 dated June 4, 1957 for 53 ps.
receipt number 59 and 60 dated June 4, 1957 for 12 ps.
As a matter of fact he was acting as Sarpanch throughout in violation of the stay order passed against him.
