BUCHUNIA AND ANOTHER Vs. SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of a learned Judge dated 9-1-58.

(2.) A complaint was filed before a Panchayati Adalat by Ram Prasad against the Appellants, Smt. Buchunia and Amrit Lal, the widow and son of Chhedi Lal, deceased. Shortly stated the allegations were that in February, 1953 a statement of account showing a liability of Rs. 2,150, and some other papers, were given to Ram Prasad by Chhedi Lal. After Chhedi Lal's death the wife of Ram Prasad demanded payment of this amount from the Appellants. At their request she brought the statement of account and other papers for them to see, where upon the Appellants threw her on the ground. The second Appellant seized the papers and ran away with them, while the first Appellant abused and threatened to beat Ram Prasad's wife. The first Appellant was convicted of an offence Under Sec. 323 and the second Appellant of an offence Under and they were sentenced to pay fines of small amount. An application made by them in revision to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate was dismissed. They then filed a petition in this Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution in which they challenged the validity of their conviction on a number of grounds. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that, although the procedure adopted by the Panchayati Adalat was defective, the defects were not of such a nature as would justify interference by this Court. It is against that order that the Appellants now appeal.

(3.) A number of submissions have been made on behalf of the Appellant, but for the purposes of this appeal it is necessary to consider only one of them. It appears that on 27-3-55, the Panchayati Adalat ordered the Sabhapati of Begum Sarai, Sri Dwarka Prasad (who was not a member of the Bench) "to file a written statement of facts according to the rule Under Sec. 83 of the Panchaya Raj Act." What exactly the Panchayati Adalat intended the Sabhapati to do is not clear, but the latter interpreted the order as requiring aim "to make an enquiry, find out the truth in the 2 above case and submit a report so that justice be not denied." The Sabhapati did not submit his report for six months. He says that in the course of his investigation he had to face all sorts of difficulties and it is clear from his report, which is a lengths one, that he did make extensive enquiries. The report contains his record of statements made to him, a statement of what he himself knows of the occurrence and some conclusions of fact such as that it is "decidedly true that a quarrel did take place between Smt. Basdei (the wife of the complainant) and the first Appellant." He also states that the circumstances were such as would make it probable that certain papers were snatched from Smt. Basdei. The Appellant's complaint is that the enquiry was conducted behind their backs, and that in any case as the report was filed only on 11-9-55, the day upon which the judgment of the Panchayati Adalat was delivered, neither of them had an opportunity of cross-examining the Sabhapati on his report. This latter fact is specifically alleged in paragraph 6 of the affidavit accompanying the petition, and, although in the counter-affidavit the facts stated in this paragraph are not admitted, there is no affirmative statement that the Appellant had an opportunity of cross-examining Sri Dwarka Prasad. It appears from the judgment of the Panchayati Adalat that the report of Sri Dwarka Prasad was considered though he was not examined. It is said in the judgment:-