Skip to content


Ram Bishal and ors. Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 25 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1952All431
ActsUttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Sections 55; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 143, 447 and 506
AppellantRam Bishal and ors.
RespondentState
Appellant AdvocateP.C. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.G.A.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
criminal - joint trial by magistrate - section 43, 447 and 506 of indian penal code, 1860 and section 55 of u.p. panchayat raj act, 1947 - cognizable cases - not triable by panchayati adalat - held, trial by magistrate legal. - - but the law provides for the joint trail of accused persons for certain offence and a joint trial of the applicants under the different sections above was perfectly in accordance with law......the first class. the contention is that the offences under sections 447 and 506, penal code being offences cognizable by a panchayati adalat under section 52, panchayat raj act, 1947 (u.p. act xxvi [26] of 1947) they could not have been tried by the magistrate and that therefore the trail of the applicants under those sections was illegal. no doubt section 52 specifies certain offences as being cognizable by a pan hayati adalat. section 55, however, runs as follows: 'no court shall take cognizance of any case or suit which is cognizable under the act by a panchayatiadalat unless an order has been passed by a sub. divisional magistrate o munsif under section 85.' it will be noticed that the section does not prohibit the taking of cognizance of any offence which may be cognizable by a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Harish Chandra, J.

1. This was a case against the applicants under Sections 143, 447 and 506, Penal Code and was tried by a Magistrate of the first class. The contention is that the offences under Sections 447 and 506, Penal Code being offences cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat under Section 52, Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (U.P. Act XXVI [26] of 1947) they could not have been tried by the Magistrate and that therefore the trail of the applicants under those sections was illegal. No doubt section 52 specifies certain offences as being cognizable by a pan hayati Adalat. Section 55, however, runs as follows:

'No Court shall take cognizance of any case or suit which is cognizable under the Act by a PanchayatiAdalat unless an order has been passed by a Sub. Divisional Magistrate o Munsif under Section 85.'

It will be noticed that the Section does not prohibit the taking of cognizance of any offence which may be cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat under Section 52 by a Panchayati Adalat. In the present case an offence under Section 143, Penal Code was also included and that was not cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat and it cannot therefore be said that the case was cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat The mere fact that two of the offences involved in the case were cognizable bya Panchayati Adalat does not bring Section 55 into play. It is pointed out that there is no prohibition in the Code of Criminal Procedure against and accused person being tried separately on charges which could under certain provisions ofthe Code be tried together. This is no doubt true. But the law provides for the joint trail of accused persons for certain offence and a joint trial of the applicants under the different sections above was perfectly in accordance with law. Inthe circumstances it cannot be said that the case was cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat. In my view the trial of the case by a Magistrate of the first class was not illegal.

2. The application is accordingly rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //