Skip to content


Algoo Ram Pradhan and anr. Vs. Tejai Ram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ786
AppellantAlgoo Ram Pradhan and anr.
RespondentTejai Ram and anr.
Cases ReferredPyarelal v. State
Excerpt:
.....to the cases tried by the courts constituted under the code. section 83 of this act clearly provides that the cr. . it has been clearly held in the two cases cited above that the high court cannot interfere with the orders passed by the nyaya panchayat or by the sub divisional magistrate in revision under section 89 of line u. on the other hand, the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party'3 counsel is well founded......no. 1, filed a complaint against algoo ram and kedar applicants under section 379 ipc before the nyaya panchayat, sikandara, within police station tharwai, district allahabad. in oct., 1974 there took place election in the village for the offices of the pradhan and sadasya gaon sabha. algoo ram applicant no. 1 was elected pradhan. kedar was elected sadasya. on 25-11-1974 the nyaya panchayat found algoo ram and kedar guilty of the offence under section 379, ipc and convicted them. algoo ram and kedar filed a revision under section 89 of the u. p. panchayat raj act, 1947 before the sub-divisional magistrate, phoolpur. the sub-divisional magistrate decided the revision on 15-10-1975, set aside the order of conviction passed by the nyaya panchayat, sikandara and remanded the case to the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.N. Goel, J.

1. This is an application Under Section 482, Cr.PC

2. On 15-7-1974 Tejai Ram, opposite party No. 1, filed a complaint against Algoo Ram and Kedar applicants Under Section 379 IPC before the Nyaya Panchayat, Sikandara, within Police Station Tharwai, district Allahabad. In Oct., 1974 there took place election in the village for the offices of the Pradhan and Sadasya Gaon Sabha. Algoo Ram applicant No. 1 was elected Pradhan. Kedar was elected Sadasya. On 25-11-1974 the Nyaya Panchayat found Algoo Ram and Kedar guilty of the offence Under Section 379, IPC and convicted them. Algoo Ram and Kedar filed a revision Under Section 89 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate decided the revision on 15-10-1975, set aside the order of conviction passed by the Nyaya Panchayat, Sikandara and remanded the case to the said Nyaya Panchayat for deciding the case again. Thereafter Algoo Ram moved an application for transfer of the case Under Section 85 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur. By the order dated 28-4-1&76 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred the case from Nyaya Panchayat, Sikandara to Nyaya Panchayat Bahoria for disposal. On 1-7-1976 the present application was moved in this Court.

3. Sri Jagdish Singh, counsel for the applicants, contended that after the applicants had been elected Pradhan and Sadasya of the Gaon Sabha, the Nyaya Panchayat ceased to have jurisdiction to decide the criminal case Under Section 379, IPC and that the case stood transferred to the court of a regular Magistrate competent to try the case. In other words, he assails the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, on 15-10-1975 setting aside the order of conviction of the applicants by the Nyaya Panchayat, Sikandara and remanding the case to the said Nyaya Panchayat for disposal again according to law.

4. Relevant portion of Section 59 of of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act reads:

59. Certain persons not to be tried-No Nyaya Panchayat shall take cognizance of any criminal case against a person where such person.(e) is a public servant.

5. It is undisputed that for the purpose of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act Pradhan and Member of the Gaon Sabha are public servants. The contention of Sri Jagdish Singh is that as the applicants became public servants after the election in Oct., 1974 the Nyaya Panchayat, Sikandara, was not competent to decide the criminal case because the word 'cognizance used in the Section would mean the whole trial and not merely the taking of the cognizance at the initial stage.

6. Sri Jagdish Singh has referred to Section 55(2) of the said Act, the relevant portion of which runs as follows:

55(2) When a Nyaya Panchayat is suspended, superseded or dissolved Under Section 95 or for any other reason ceases to function, all cases pending before it shall stand transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction which shall dispose them of according to law.

7. The contention of Sri Jagdish Singh is that at Nyaya Panchayat Sikandar? ceased to have jurisdiction to decide the criminal case against the applicants on their being elected as Pradhan and Sadasya of the Gaon Sabha, the case stood transferred to a competent Magistrate as kid down in S, 55(2) of the said Act.

8. learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this application Under Section 482, Cr.PC His contention is that the applicants cannot approach this Court Under Section 482, Cr.PC which has a limited application and that, if the applicants were advised, they could move this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

9. Section 482, Cr.P.C. clearly lays down that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

10. The section is clearly intended to prevent the abuse of the process of any court constituted under the Code. The section further clearly indicates that the inherent powers of the High Court have been saved to secure the ends of justice in relation to the cases tried by the courts constituted under the Code. Section 6 of the Code enumerates the classes of courts, Naya Panchayats are not included in this list of courts.

11. Moreover, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act is an exhaustive Act. It lays down its own procedure. Section 83 of this Act clearly provides that the Cr.PC shall no apply to any criminal case in a Nyaya Panchayat except as provided in the Act.

12. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 referred to the case Basantu v. Kanhaiya Singh 1964 All LJ 661 : 1965-1 Cri LJ 670 decided by a Division Bench of this Court. It was held that the High Court cannot interfere with the order of Nyaya Panchayat and also with the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in revision Under Section 89 of the Act in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction Under Section 561A, Cr.PC

13. The learned counsel for the opposite party also referred to an earlier case Pyarelal v. State AIR 1955 N. U. C. All) 862 : 1954 All LJ 267, decided by this Court, In this case also it was held that it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the order passed by the Panchayat Adalat Under Section 561-A of the CrIPC

14. At this stage it would be useful to refer to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 writs of various types mentioned therein can be filed in the High Court. Then Article 227 of the Constitution confers power of superintendence on every High Court over all courts. It is thus obvious that the powers given to the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are wider than the inherent power saved in Section 482, of the new CrIPC corresponding to Section 561-A of the old Code. It has been stated above that according to the applicants' counsel the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while disposing of the criminal revision on 15-10-1975 was not justified in remanding the case to the Nyaya Panchayat for a decision afresh. It means that the applicants' counsel assails an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Under Section 89 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. It will next be seen that on the own application of Algoo Ram the Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred the case from Nyaya Panchayat, Sikandara to the Nyaya Panchayat Baho-ria. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate did so Under Section 85 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The intention of the present petition is even to annul this order of transfer.

15. The position that follows is that by means of this petition the applicants are assailing the orders dated 15-10-1975 and 28-4-1976 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Under Sections 89 and 85 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, respectively.. It has been clearly held in the two cases cited above that the High Court cannot interfere with the orders passed by the Nyaya Panchayat or by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in revision Under Section 89 of line U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. In this view of the matter, it seems that the present petition Under Section 482, Cr.PC is not maintainable in this Court and if advised the applicants may approach this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Sri Jagdish Singh attempted to distinguish the two cases cited above on the ground that after the election of the applicants as Pradhan and Sadasya of the Gaon Sabha Nyaya Panchayat ceased to have jurisdiction to try the case and the case automatically stood transferred to a regular Magistrate and as the High Court had jurisdiction on the court of a regular Magistrate, application Under Section 482, Cr.PC was maintainable. This contention does not seem to be correct in view of the specific order dated 15-10-1975 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the revision application moved by the two applicants themselves. The intention of the present application Under Section 482, Cr.PC has been stated just above. In the circumstances, the argument of Sri Jagdish Singh does not carry force. On the other hand, the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party'3 counsel is well founded. Inherent power saved Under Section 482, Cr.PC has to be exercised within its four corners and it is not to be so exercised as to interfere with the normal functioning of the courts or Nyaya Panchayats or Tribunals constituted under Special Acts. If this power is exercised in this case, it would mean interference with the legal orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the own petitions of the applicants and it would also deprive the Nyaya Panchayat, Baho-ria to decide the case which has been transferred to it by an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed within the ambit of a statutory provision.

16. In view of the above, it is unnecessary in this case to determine whether the case stood transferred to a competent Magistrate Under Section 55 (2) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act as contended by Sri Jagdish Singh.

17. In the result, the application is dismissed.

18. The stay order dated 1-7-1976 is hereby vacated.


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