Madras High Court
Panchayat Board Election Officer Cum vs Chinnaiyah Ambalam on 25 March, 2024
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.795 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.03.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.795 of 2020
and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5358 and 6848 of 2020
Panchayat Board Election Officer cum
Block Development Officer,
Kalaiyar Koil,
Sivagangai District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Chinnaiyah Ambalam
2.The District Election Officer cum
District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The State Election Commission,
The State Election Commissioner Office,
Koyambedu, Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set
aside the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in E.O.P.No.
5 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal District Judge/Election Tribunal,
Sivagangai, dated 16.03.2020.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.795 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.A.L.Kannan for R1
Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathy for R3
Mr.D.Sasikumar,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 16.03.2020 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in E.O.P.No.5 of 2020. The said application was filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking to take appropriate action against the respondents for failing to comply with the orders passed by the learned trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2020, dated 20.01.2020. The learned trial Court by an order dated 20.01.2020, passed an order directing the respondents therein to produce certain documents and CCTV footage. The relevant portion from the said order reads as under:
“In the result, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to produce the following:
1) 27.12.2019 md;W rpYf;fg;gl;b gQ;rhaj;J jiyth;
Njh;jypy; gjpthd nkhj;j thf;Ffs; tpguk; mlq;fpa gbtk; 20.
2) rpYf;fg;gl;b gQ;rhaj;J jiyth; Njh;jypy; gjpthd thf;Ffis 02.01.2020 md;W vz;zpa NghJ jahh;
nra;ag;gl;l gbtk; 20> 23 jghy; Xl;L tpguk; Mfpaitfs;. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.795 of 2020
3) rpYf;fg;gl;b gQ;rhaj;J jiyth; Njh;jypy; gjpthd thf;Ffis 02.01.2020 md;W vz;zpa NghJ thf;F vz;zpf;if ikaj;jpy; itf;fg;gl;bUe;j CCTV fhkpuh gjpTfs; KOtJk;.”
2. According to the first respondent/petitioner, the petitioner herein produced the documents mentioned at serial Nos.1 and 2 of the above said order. However, failed to produce the CCTV footage mentioned at serial No.3 of the above order. Hence, respondent No.1 herein filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to take appropriate action against the petitioner herein. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court, on coming to the conclusion that failure of the petitioner herein to produce the CCTV footage would amount to an offence under Section 175 of IPC and therefore, directed registration of the crime against the petitioner herein under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. From the perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner herein immediately produce the documents, which are mentioned 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.795 of 2020 in S.Nos.1 and 2 of the order in I.A.No.2 of 2020. Further the petitioner herein also filed a counter in I.A.No.3 of 2020 stating that CCTV footage, which is required to be produced, is not under the control of respondent No. 3 herein and therefore, the petitioner is not able to produce the same. Neither the respondent No.2 herein nor respondent No.3 herein filed counter in I.A.No.3 of 2020. However, the learned trial Court having taken note of the contentions raised by the petitioner herein, who is respondent No.1 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 passed the order under revision. When it is the stand of the petitioner that said CCTV footage is not under his control and the same is with the respondent No.3 herein, the learned trial Court ought to have called upon the respondent No.3 or ought to have passed appropriate order against respondent No.3. Instead the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the action of the petitioner herein amounts to an offence under Section 175 of IPC. Section 175 of IPC reads as under:
“175. Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it.— Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or electronic record to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.795 of 2020 or with both;
or, if the document or electronic record is to be produced or delivered up to a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
4. From the plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that said provision deals with a case where there was omission to produce document or electronic record to a public servant by person legally bound to produce it. But here, it is a case, where a Court of law directed to produce certain documents and CCTV footage and the Court itself cannot treat it as a public servant. Thus, the very approach of the learned trial Court in treating itself as public servant and thereby, holding that the action of the petitioner herein attracts Section 175 of IPC is totally a result of misconstruction of the said provision and under no circumstances Section 175 of IPC would get attracted in case of violation of the order passed by the Court of law. Hence, the order under revision passed by the trial Court is wholly un- sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.795 of 2020
5. Further, it is also necessary to notice that the respondents 2 and 3 herein who are parties to the said I.A.No.2 of 2020 are equally bound to comply with the order passed by the learned trial Court. Admittedly, the said order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2020, dated 20.01.2020 has become final. Therefore, it is not only the petitioner herein, but the respondents 2 and 3 herein are also equally responsible to see that the order passed by the learned trial Court is complied with. But the learned trial Court instead of passing appropriate order against all the respondents, who are bound by such order, in spite of taking a specific plea by the petitioner herein that the CCTV footage is not under the control of respondent No.3, proceeded to pass the order under revision. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trail Court for adjudication afresh. Further, this Court does not intend to remain silent simply remanding the matter to the learned trail Court. Election Petitions are required to be disposed of within a time frame. Otherwise the purpose for filing Election Petition 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.795 of 2020 would be frustrated. As the order passed by the learned trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2020 has become final, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to take immediate steps for production of CCTV footage as directed by the learned trial Court forthwith as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the same is not complied with by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the learned trail Court is at liberty to proceed with I.A.No.3 of 2020 and pass appropriate orders against all the parties who are bound by the said order.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.03.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsm 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.795 of 2020 MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
vsm To
1.The Principal District Judge/Election Tribunal, Sivagangai.
2.The District Election Officer cum District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The State Election Commission, The State Election Commissioner Office, Koyambedu, Chennai.
4.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.795 of 2020 25.03.2024 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis