BANSHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Jaunpur in a matter which was decided by a Panchayati Adalat and in which orders were passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. A complaint was filed in the Panchayati Adalat of Kalichabad under Section 447, Penal Code. The Sarpanch constituted a bunch of Shri Rajpat Misir, Shri Sahdeo Ram, Shri Jagannath, Shri Gobind Ram and Shri Raja Ram. The entire evidence was recorded by these Panches and when the case was ready for judgment the ac- cused made an application to the Sub-divisional Magistrate praying that the bench should be reconstituted as they were not likely to get justice from the bench which was trying the case. The Sub-divisional Magistrate rejected this application but expressed an opinion that the Sarpanch may reconstitute the bench. The Sarpanch reconstituted the bench and the accused were convicted and three of them were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 each and the fourth to a fine of Rs. 25. Against this order the accused again went up in revision to the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Their application was dismissed. Then the accused applied in revision under Section 435, Criminal P. C. to the Sessions Judge on the ground that the order of the Sub divisional Magistrate directing a reconstitution of the bench was unwarranted in law and should be set aside so that if that is done the subsequent order of the bench convicting the accused would automatically fall to the ground.

(2.) On behalf of the complainant an objection to the hearing of the revision by the Sessions Judge was raised. It was urged by him that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision as the order of the Panchayati Adalat was final and the Sub-divisional Magistrate had merely rejected the applications of the accused and had not interfered with the order of the Panchayati Adalat. The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had directed the reconstitution of the bench and that, therefore, had interfered with the constitution of the beech and as this was not warranted by law he had power to entertain the revision under Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, and make a recommendation to this Court.

(3.) The first print that falls to be decided in the present case is a question of fact whether the Sub-divisional Magistrate directed the Sarpanch of the Panchayati Adalat to reconstitute the bench. The order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate is not on the record. The order of the Sarpanch reconstituting the bench is on the record. In this order the Sarpanch stated that according to the directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate he was reconstituting the bench. In their explanations both the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Sarpaneh stated that no order directing the Sarpanch to reconstitute the bench was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but that a mere desire was expressed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that it would be better if the bench is reconstituted by the Sarpanch. This explanation has not been controverted by the learned Sessions Judge in his note made after the receipt of the explanations. I must, therefore, take it that no order directing the Sarpanch to resonstitute the bench was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The mere expression of an opinion about the desirability of the reconstitution of the bench by the Sarpanoh is not an order directing the reconstitution of the bench. Since the application of the accused was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate it cannot be said that he interfered with the order of the Panchayati Adalat. The second application of the accused to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after they were convicted by the Panchayati Adalat was also dismissed.