Skip to content


Sukh Ram Vs. Faturia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) Appeal No. 48 of 1968
Judge
Reported in5(1969)DLT574
ActsHimachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1953 - Sections 2
AppellantSukh Ram
RespondentFaturia
Advocates: Chabildas and; Prithvi Raj, Advs
Excerpt:
.....of conviction restored - petitioner argued that judge had only jurisdiction to quash order of nyaya panchayat and nto to restore earlier order - decision of nyaya panchayat will remain only decision of nyaya panchayat - when decision of full bench of nyaya panchayat quashed ntohing survives for restoration - order of nyaya panchayat upheld - impugned order lawful. - - 1887, as applied to himachal prarlesh, a proceeding in respect of the same relief and on the same facts may be started before the revenue court having jurisdiction in the matter and the period from the date such proceeding was pending before the nyaya panchayat to the date of such order shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the fresh procceding'.(6) it is clear from the definition of 'nyaya..........a complaint against the petitioner under sections 277/283 of the indian penal code before the nyaya panchayat of village dadhole, district bilaspur. he was convi- cted by a bench of the nyaya panchayat and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 50.00 . i he petitioner filed an appeal before a full bench of the nyaya panchayat and the full bench accepting the appeal acquitted him. against this acquittal the respondent filed a revision before the sub-divisional judge, bilaspur who, by the aforesaid order, quashed the order passed by the full bench of the nyaya panchayat acquitting the petitioner and restored the original order of conviction of a bench of the nyaya f'anchayat.(3) the petitioner's complaint is that the sub-divisional judge had jurisdiction only to quash the order of the nyaya.....
Judgment:

S.N. Andley, J.

(1) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated April 20, 1968 of the Sub-Divisional Judge, Bilaspur which had been passed under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1952.

(2) The respondent complainant had filed a complaint against the petitioner under sections 277/283 of the Indian Penal Code before the Nyaya Panchayat of village Dadhole, District Bilaspur. He was convi- cted by a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 . I he petitioner filed an appeal before a Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and the Full Bench accepting the appeal acquitted him. Against this acquittal the respondent filed a revision before the Sub-Divisional Judge, Bilaspur who, by the aforesaid order, quashed the order passed by the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat acquitting the petitioner and restored the original order of conviction of a Bench of the Nyaya F'anchayat.

(3) The petitioner's complaint is that the Sub-Divisional Judge had jurisdiction only to quash the order of the Nyaya Panchayat but he Lad nto jurisdiction to restore the earlier order of a Bench of the Pan- chayat.

(4) Section 2 (c) of the Act defines 'case' as meaning a criminal proceeding in respect of an offence triable by a Nyaya Panchayat. Sec- corporation 2 (j) defines 'Nyaya Panchayat' as meaning a Nyaya Panchayat established under Section 47. and includes a Bench thereof.

(5) Certain sections of this Act may be set out : - '56. (1) Ntowithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 every case instituted under this Act shall be instituted before the Sarpanch of the Ny^ya Panchayat of the Gram Sabha area in which the offence was committed; Provided that such case may be instituted before such Panch as has been authorised by the prescribed authority to receive comp- laints in the area in. which the offence was committed.' '59. A .yaya Panchayat may impose a fine nto exceeding Rs. 100.00 but shal! nto inflict a sentence of imprisonment, either sub- stantive or in d'.'fault of 'payment of fine.' 'Q2. {i; Any person aggrieved by .-in ^rder or decis-iun of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchavat rn.tv appeal in the prescrib'-d man- ner and within a period of thirty day?, from the date of such order or decision to the Full Bench of the Nyaya P.'nchayat of the circle consistirg of: (a) two out of five members of the Bench who heard or decided the case, suit or proceeding, (b) and the remaining members of the. Nyaya Panchayat who were nto members of the Bench who heard ar.d decided the case, svitorpioceed'ng, and the a, peal shall be heard by such Bench in the prescribed manner, ('-'-) Ntowithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) an appeal rnav be heard or decided by nine or more of the Panchas of the Full Bench of the circle and no hearing oi decision shall be invalid rr^rely b-cause of the presence of only nine or more of the Panchas at the hearing. (3) The selection of two members out of the five of the Bench who heard and decided the case, suit or proceeding for the purpose of the appeal mentioned in sub-section (I ) of section 92 shall be made in the prescribed manner.' '93. (1) A revision from any order or decree passed by a Bench or a full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat in a case or suit shall lie to the Sub-Divisional Judge, and in proceedings under the Punjab revenue Act, 1887, as applied to Himachal Pradesh to the Sub-Divisional Officer having jurisdiction in the matter. (2 If there has been a mis-carriage of justice or if there is an apprehension of mis-carriage oi justice in ai^ c'a^, ^ oi ^^^^^ or if the Bench or the full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat has exei- cised jurisdiction nto vested in it any Jaw, the Sub-Divisional Judge in respect of any case or any suit and the Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of ny proceeding under t'e Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, as applied to Himachal Pradesh may on the application of any party or on his own mtoion at any time in a pending case, suit or procee- ding, as the case may he and within sixty days from the date of dec- ree or order, call for the ncord of the case, suit or proceeding, as the case may be; from the Nyaya Panchayat and for reasons to be recor- ded in writing- (a) cancel the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat with regard to any case, suit or proceeding, or (b) quash any decree or order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat at any stage. (3) Where an order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Judge under sub section (1) in respect of any case of suit, trial or complaint or toherwise in respect of the same offence, or on the same cause of action and for the same relief may be started in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judge having jurisdiction to try the case or suit and the period from the date of the institution of the suit be- fore the Nyaya Panchayat to the date such order shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the fresh suit. (4) Where an order has been passed under sub-section (1) by a Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of any proceeding under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. 1887, as applied to Himachal Prarlesh, a proceeding in respect of the same relief and on the same facts may be started before the Revenue Court having jurisdiction in the matter and the period from the date such proceeding was pending before the Nyaya Panchayat to the date of such order shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the fresh procceding'.

(6) It is clear from the definition of 'Nyaya Panchavat' as given in Section 2(j) of the Act that this expression includes a Bench as well as a Full Bench. A revision before the Sub-Divisional Judge is competent nto only against a decision of a Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat but also against a decision of a Bench of the Nvaya Panchayat and it appears from the phraseology of sub-section (2) of Section 93 that it is nto necessary for any person to file an appeal before a Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and he can file a revision directly against the original decision of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat. This indicates that no distinction has been made between a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and a Full Bench thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 93 gives power to the Sub-Divisional Judge to interfere with order passed by a Bench or a Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat in cases inter alia, of mis-carriage of justice or exercise of jurisdiction nto vested in it by law. While exercising this revisional jurisdiction, the Sub Divisinal Judge can either cancel the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat or quash any decree or order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat, In this subsection no distinction has been made in so far as cancellation and quashing are concerned between decision of a Bench of a Nyaya Panchayat or of a Full Bench thereof. Then sub-section (3) of Section 93 provides that if an order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 93, it is open to the parties affected to re-commence the action in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judge which had been commenced by him in the Nyaya Panchayat.

(7) The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Judge is only to cancel and quash as provided by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 93 and that it was nto open to the Sub-Divisional Judge in this instance to pass the order of restoration of the order of conviction by a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat. All that the Sub-Divisional judge could do, it is contended, was to quash the order and then it was open to the parties concerned to re-commence the action in his Court.

(8) On the toher hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that what the Sub Divisional Judge did in this instance was only to quash the order of the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and the inevitable result of such quashing would be the restoration of the order of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat whereby the petitioner was convicted.

(9) Section 93 and the definition Section do nto make any distinction between a Bench and the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchaynt. Btoh are included in the expression Nyaya Panchayat and even in there has been an appeal to the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchavat it cannto be said that the two decisions are of different bodies or authorities. Whether it is the decision of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat which goes before the Sub-Divisional Judge in revision without the appeal before the Full Bench or whether it is the decision of the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat makes no difference. It is the final decision which goes before the Sub Divisional Judge for revision and it is difficult to say that the decision of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat continues to exist side by side with the decision of a Full Bench. The former merges into the latter and it is the latter alone which is the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat. If that is so then all that the Sub Divisional Judge could do was to cancel or quash whatever decision was before. him for cancellation. If that decision is cancelled or quashed there, is no decision left to be restored.

(10) The decision of the Nyaya Panchayat in this case is that the petitioner is acquitted of the charges leveled against him and that will remain the only decision of the Nyaya Panchayat ntowithstanding the fact that & Bench of it had earlier convicted him. If the decision of the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat is quashed, ntohing survives which can be restored.

(11) The order of the Sub-Divisional Judge is nto, thereforee, within the bounds of his jurisdiction. In exercise, thereforee, of the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution I direct that the words ' and that of the Nyaya Panchayat is upheld' after the word 'quashed' in the concluding part of the impugned order arc struck off. There shall be no order as to costs.


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