STATE Vs. HEM NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Gram Panchayat of Shivapur Karan Chhapra reported to the panchayati Adalat of Kararha uparwar against the applicant and others in connection with apprehending breach of peace. The panchayati Adalat issued a notice to the applicant requiring him to appear in Court on a certain date. The notice is alleged to have been served on the applicant. The applicant, however, denies, it. The fact is that on the date of hearing the applicant did not appear before the Panchayati adalat. The Panchayati Adalat being satisfied that the notice had been served convicted the applicant of the offence under Section 172, I. P. C. and ordered him to pay Rs. 85/-fine. The revision filed against that order was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who held that under Section 52, Panchayat Raj Act the Panchayati Adalat had jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 172, I. P. C. and that therefore the sentence passed on the applicant could not be held to be illegal or improper. The applicant therefore has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the orders and judgments of the Courts below.

(2.) IT appears that neither of the Courts below realised what they were doing. The order of the panchayati Adalat shows that the notice had been served on the applicant and he insolently did not appear before the Court. If the notice had been served on the applicant no offence under section 172, I. P. C. was made out. Section 172, I. P. C. makes absconding of a person in order to evade being served with a summons or notice an offence and does not make non-appearance of a person served with a summons or notice an offence. It is clear; therefore that the Panchayati adalat which felt offended immensely on account of insult to its dignity by the non-appearance of the applicant failed to have the judicial mind and without ascertaining the offence committed by the applicant convicted him of the offence and imposed a sentence which by no means is a lenient or a proper sentence in the absence of any aggravating circumstances attending the non-appearance of the party.

(3.) THE Panchayati Adalat could not have convicted the applicant even if he had committed an offence either under Section 172 or Section 174, I. P. C. with respect to his absconding in order to avoid service of a summons issued by that Court or his not appearing in compliance with the summons issued by that Court. There is nothing in the Panchayat Raj Act which empowers a panchayati Adalat to convict a person who behaved in that manner with respect to a summons or notice issued by it. At best it is empowered like any ordinary individual or public servant to lodge a complaint against the person concerned with respect to his conduct which amounted to an offence. Such complaint would be lodged before the proper Court and could not be tried by the same Panchayati Adalat. On general principles applicable to the trial of every criminal case the party concerned in the incident leading to the commission of the offence cannot be the judge of that case. In the Panchayat Raj Act Section 49 Sub-section (3) specifically provides that: