RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Prasad, Sudama, Sada Shiv and Sukhdeo were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 823, Penal Code. They were tried by a Panchayati Adalat of Bagehta, Tehsil Baberoo, in the district of Banda. The Adalat found them guilty of the offence with which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them. They filed a revision in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baberoo; but the revision was rejected. Now, this application has been filed for the quashing of the conviction and sentence in exercise of this Court's power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the Panchayati Adalat was not constituted according to law inasmuch as the Sarpanch had not formed a bench of five panches from the panel as required by Section 49, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (No. 26 of 1947) and the case was heard and decided by only three panches. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who seems to have confined his attention only to facts.

(3.) On behalf of the complainant it has been argued that this application is in substance an application for the exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and as such it is not cognizable by a Single Judge. Learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that Article 227 of the Constitution confers jurisdiction upon the High Court to exercise powers of superintendence over the Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction; but while exercising that jurisdiction the Court has to make an order in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.