minal Appeal No 183 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 30 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No 384 of 1965
RB 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 judgment of the Mysore High Court in which the only point involved is whether a private complaint could be entertained for the commission of an offence under section 220 of the Mysore Village Panchayats  Local Boards Act 1959 hereinafter called the Act
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 50 and Pa 40 and in default to undergo 7 days and 5 days  simple imprisonment respectively
A private complaint was filed against the appellants alleging that they gave bids at an auction held at the village panchayat and appellant No 1 purchased a radio belonging to the panchayat for Pa 35 
Appellant No 2 also bid at the same auction for the radio
According to section 220 of the Act no member or an employee of a panchayat shah directly or indirectly bid for or acquire interest in any movable or immovable property sold at such sale in connection therewith
if any person contravenes this provision he is to be punished on conviction with a fine which may extend to Rs 500 
Under Rule 16 of the Mysore Panchayat Secretaries  Powers and Duties Rules 1961 promulgated under the provisions of the Act only the Secretary of the Panchayat has the power to file a complaint on behalf of the Panchayat
The High Court was of the view that this Rule did not  preclude persons 935 other than the Secretary from filing a complaint but it only debarred complaints being made by others on behalf of the Panchayat
Now Rule 16 may be reproduced
 The Secretary shall have power to file complaints and suits on behalf of the Panchayat and to conduct the proceedings on its behalf under the orders of the Panchayat In KM Kanavi vs The State of Mysore1 the appellant Kanavi who was the president of Municipal Borough of Gadag Betgeri had been removed from Presidentship
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 section 23A of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 hereinafter called the Bombay Act to that effect
Pursuant to orders made by the Divisional Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner the new President filed a complaint against Kanavi for an offence punishable under section 23A3 of the Bombay Act
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 50 
A question arose whether the complaint filed by the new President was competent as it was not filed in accordance with the procedure laid down in that Act
Section 200 of the Bombay Act provided that the Standing Committee and subject to the provisions of sub section
3 the Chief Officer may order proceedings to be taken for the recovery of any penalties and for the punishment of any persons offending against the provisions of the aforesaid Act
This Court was of the opinion that the complaint which had been filed by the new President was for initiating the proceedings for the punishment of Kanavi who had offended against the provisions of sub section
2 of section 23A and as the new President was not the Chief Officer and he had not filed the complaint under any direction made by the Standing Committee the complaint could not be entertained
In that case also the High Court had taken the view that section 2001 was only an enabling section which gave the power to the Standing Committee and the Chief Officer to make a direction for taking of proceedings and it could not be held to be exhaustive of the authorities who could make directions for initiation of proceedings
The High Court had taken notice of the fact that there was no provision in that Act forbidding cognizance of offences being taken except on a complaint made under a direction of the Standing Committee or the Chief Officer
 This is what was observed by this Court  We are unable to accept the interpretation put by the High Court on section 2001 of the Act
It is true that there is no specific provision in the Act laying down that  936 cognizance of an offence under the Act is not to be taken except on a Complaint filed in accordance with a direction made under section 2001 but the scheme of the Act and the purpose of this provision in section 2001 makes it clear that the legislature intended that such proceedings
should only be instituted in the manner laid down m that sub section
The word may was used only because the legislature could not have enacted a mandatory provision requiring the Standing Committee or the Chief Officer to make a direction for institution of proceedings in all cases
This word was intended to give a discretion to the Standing COmmittee or the Chief Officer to make directions for taking proceedings only when they considered it appropriate that such a direction should be made and to avoid compelling the Standing Committee or the Chief Officer to make such direction in all cases
The use of this word may cannot be interpreted as laying down that if a proceeding for punishment of any person for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act is to be instituted it can be instituted in any manner without complying with the requirements of section 2001 of the Act
If the interpretation put by the High Court on this provision is accepted it would mean that this provision was totally unnecessary because there would be no need to confer power on the Standing Committee or the Chief Off icer to make such directions if such directions could be made or proceedings instituted at the instance of any private individual
We cannot accept the submission that this provision was made in the Act simply by way of abundant caution
In fact if the provision had been made with such an object in view there is no reason why the power should have been expressed to be conferred on the Standing Committee and the Chief Officer only and not on the President of the Municipality
We consequently hold that if any proceeding for punishment of any person for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act is to be instituted it must be instituted in the manner laid down in section 2001 of the Act and in that manner only
 It may be mentioned that the expression of the above opinion was based on a consideration of the previous decisions of this Court
Following the ratio of the above decision it would be legitimate to hold that the complaint in the present case could be filed under Rule 16 only by the Secretary of the Panchayat and by no one else
It may bepointed out that in the Act section 2133 is analogous to section 23A3 of the Bombay Act
On a parity of reasoning it could not be suggested that if there had been any 937 contravention of section 2133 any voter or member of the public could have filed a complaint in the matter
The other provisions also of the Act which follow namely sections 214 to 219 indicate that it was never contemplated that a complaint for _infringemeat or contravention of the prohibition contained therein could be lodged before a magistrate having jurisdiction under section 233 by any private individual in the presence of a specific rule that the Secretary shall have the power to file a complaint on behalf of the Panchayat
Most of these sections ie sections 217 and 218 postulate infraction of orders of the Panchayat for which the Panchayat alone would be interested in filing a complaint
We axe satisfied that the scheme of the Act also supports the view which we are taking that a complaint could be flied only under Rule 16 of the Mysore Panchayat Secretaries  Powers and Duties Rules 1961 and could not have been filed by a private complainant
The High Court seems to have relied on section 236 of the Act which deals with powers of police officers
This section provides that any police officer may arrest any person committing in his presence any offence against any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule regulation or bye law made thereunder
The person arrested has to be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of arrest
The police officer effecting the arrest must give immediate information to the Chairman or the Secretary of the Panchayat of the commission of such offence and give all assistance in the exercise of his lawful authority
The High Court was of the view that under the provisions of this section the police officer could submit a charge sheet under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code after necessary investigation for offences committed under the Act
Chapter of the Act relates to establishment and constitution of Panchayats
There are certain sections in it which by express words make offences committed under them cognizable but in the same Chapter there are other sections which do not contain any such provision for instance sections 15 17
21 and 22 expressly provide that the offences committed under them would be cognizable but sections 16 18 19 and 20 do not contain any such provision
In other words the offences committed under them must be deemed to be not cognizable
Section 23 in the same Chapter says that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 16 or section 17 or under section 192a unless there is a complaint made by an order of or under authority from the Deputy Commissioner
The High Court was therefore not right in saying that all offences committed under the various provisions contained in the Act would be cognizable owing to the general powers conferred on police officers by section 236
Indeed that section gives only a limited power to the police officer to effect arrest if an offence is committed in his presence
There is authority for the view that this will not make an offence cognizable within the meaning of section 4f 938 of the Criminal Procedure Code vide Public Prosecutor1 vs AV Ramiah
In the absence of any express provision in section 220 with which we are concerned we doubt whether the offence committed under it would be cognizable and a police officer could carry on investigation in respect of it under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code and finally submit a charge sheet under section 173 of that Code
It may also be pointed out that in the present case we are not concerned with the powers which a police officer can exercise in respect of an offence committed under section 220 of the Act
What has to be seen is whether a private person or an individual could file a complaint
In the presence of Rule 16 and for the reasons given in KM Kanavi vs State of Mysore2 we are of the opinion that it was the Secretary of the Panchayat who alone was competent to file the complaint
It must be remembered that it would be the panchayat that would be largely interested in taking action against any of its members and employees for the contravention of section 220
The Secretary would therefore be entitled to file a complaint on behalf of the panchayat
The difficulty felt by the High Court that a Secretary who is subordinate to the Chairman may find it embarrassing to file a complaint against him can hardly be accepted as a serious hurdle in the way of coming to the conclusion at which we have arrived
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 provisions like section 220 of the Act
The Secretary acts on behalf of the panchayat and the question of his subordination to any of its office bearers is of no consequence
In the view we have taken the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on each of the appellants is set aside
GC Appeal allowed
1 AIR 1958 AP 392


Summary:
A private complaint was lodged against the appellants for an offence under section 220 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act 1959
Rule 16 of the Mysore Panchayat Secretaries  Powers and Duties Rules 1961 provided that the Secretary shall have power to file complaints and suits on behalf of the Panchayat and to conduct the proceedings on its behalf and on the orders of the Panchayat
On their conviction 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 Panchayat
Against the High Court s judgment appeal by special leave was filed in this Court
HELD i In the presence of r 16 and for the reasons given by this Court in R M Kanavi s case which dealt with similar provisions
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
Section 2133 of the Mysore Act is analogous to section 23A3 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 section 213  3  any voter or member of the public could have filed a complaint in the matter
The other provisions
also of the Act which follow namely as
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 section 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 ie sq 217 and 218 postulate infraction of orders of the Panchayat for which the Panchayat alone 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 C KM Kanavi vs State of Mysore   followed and  ii The High Court was not fight in saying that all offences committed under the various provisions contained in the Act would be cognizable owing to the general powers conferred on police officer by section 236 of the Act
The section gives Only a limited power to the police 934 officer to effect arrest if an offence is committed In his presence
The present case moreover did not relate to the powers which a police officer could exercise in respect of an offence under section 220 of the Act but to the question whether a private complaint could be filed
937 G 938 C Public Prosecutor vs A V Ramiah AIR 1958 AP 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 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 section 220 of the Act The  Secretary acts on behalf of the Panchayat and the question of his subordination to any one of its office bearers is of no consequence
938 D