V. Ramamurthi Ayyar and Another vs Parasaram Mangayacharyulu and Others

The pleadings clearly state that the second defendant the Sub Magistrate, was acting under Sections 190 and 65 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of a complaint u/s 448 of the Indian Penal Code, when he went to the temple and found the plaintiffs barricading themselves inside and refusing to open the door, and then arrested them, releasing them immediately after on their recognizance to appear to answer a charge u/s 443 of the Indian Penal Code. His acts and those of the 1st defendant, the Inspector or Police, were perfectly legal. The Subordinate Judge has misread the evidence of the Sub-Magistrate, who does not say that he had disposed of the occurrence report which reached him on the previous day. As he has passed no final order on the report, it was open to him to take action upon it next day, and further u/s 190 (1) (c) the facts which he saw at the temple were sufficient to justify him in taking action independently of the occurrence report. We set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court.