RAGHUNANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the Panchayati Adalat convicted the applicants and two other persons for offences under Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act and Section 323, Penal Code, and fined each of them Rs. 20 for both the offences. A revision was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Banda. He acquitted two of the convicted persons and reduced the fine of the other three, who are the applicants.

(2.) In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution, it has been urged that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to Substitute a fresh order under Section 85, Panahayat Raj Act, as that section authorises the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to cancel the jurisdiction of a Panchayati Adalat with regard to any case or to quash the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat at any stage. It is clear, therefore, that once the Sub-Divisional Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there has been a miscarriage of justice, he has to quash the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat. He is not given power under Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act, to modify the order passed by a Panchayati Adalat in any manner. In other words, either the order passed by a Panchayati Adalat is to be confirmed intact or the order is to be quashed, with the result that the complainant would be free to institute a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case. It follows, therefore, that the order complained of which has been passed was beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act.

(3.) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate seems to have acted beyond his jurisdiction under Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act in another manner as well. The finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the case is not proved against two of the five persons convicted by the Panchayati Adalat means that there had been a miscarriage of justice in this case. He should have, therefore, quashed the order of the Panchayati Adalat with respect to all the applicants before him and not with respect to only those two persons who had been wrongly convicted, as Sub-section (1) of Section 85, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act provides for the quashing of the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat and should, therefore, mean the entire order passed by that Adalat and not a portion of that order. This view finds support from the provisions of Sub-section (2), which provides that when an order has been passed under Sub-section (1) in respect of any case, a trial on complaint or otherwise in respect of the same offence may be started in the Court of a, Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case. This means that those two persons against whom the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has quashed the proceedings can be proceeded against for the same offence in the Court of a competent Magistrate. It would be very embarrassing indeed that that Magistrate should be in a position to hold that the prosecution version was not established at all or was not true while the conviction of three persons should remain good on account of their conviction by the Panchayati Adalat and its confirmation by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It, therefore, appears to me that these provisions of Section 85 of the Act provide for the quashing of the entire order and not so much of the order as be against any particular individual, In this view of the matter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should be ordered to pass the proper order in this case, taking into consideration that he or another Sub-Divisional Magistrate had already found that miscarriage of justice had taken place with respect to two accused.