CHIVDENI RAI Vs. BANS NARAIN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Ghazipur, dated the 27th December, 1952, who quashed the order of the Panchayati Adalat, Reotipur, and cancelled its jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts which gave rise to the case out of which this application has arisen may be stated as follows : The Applicant filed a complaint under sections 323 and 426, I. P. C. against the opposite parties 1 to 3 in the Panchayati Adalat, Reotipur. It appears that an application was made toy the accused to the Panchayati Raj Inspector that they were not on good terms with the Sarpanch and that the case might be tried by another bench of which he was not a member. The Panchayati Raj Inspector stayed further proceedings. This stay order was subsequently vacated by him and a date was fixed for the hearing of the case in the Panchayati Adalat and notice was ordered to be issued to the parties. When the case was taken up on the date so fixed the opposite parties 1 to 3 were not present at the time of the hearing of the case. The case was adjourned to several dates and ultimately it was decided ex parte on 19-12-51 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 and they were convicted and sentenced under Sections 323 and 426 I. P. C. They were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 24/- each under section 323, I. P. C. and Rs. 3/- each under section 426, I. P. C. Thereafter, the opposite parties 1 to 3 made an application on 7-3-1952 for the setting aside of the ex parte order against them and for the rehearing of the case according to the provisions of section 79 (2) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. This application was presented to the Sarpanch of the Panchayati Adalat but he instead of placing this application before the Panchayati Adalat disposed it of himself on the 5th May, 1952, and rejected it. The same day a revision was filed by the convicted persons in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the ground that they had no knowledge of the date fixed for the hearing of the case. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in their revision application were correct and that the case was decided behind their back without informing them of the date fixed for the hearing of the case. He also found that interpolations had been made in the order-sheet of this case in the Panchayati Adalat, He, therefore, quashed the order of the Panchayati Adalat and cancelled its jurisdiction as already stated.

(3.) It was contended before me on behalf of the applicant that the Sub-divisional Magistrate could entertain the revision only within 60 days of the order as provided in section 85 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and as the revision in this case was filed much beyond this period it could not have been entertained by him and his order, therefore, quashing the conviction and cancelling the jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalat was without jurisdiction. Section 85, no doubt, provides that a Sub-divisional Magistrate may either of his own motion or on the application of any party send for the record from the Panchayati Adalat concerned within 60 days from the date of the order. Section 89 provides the forum in which a revision will lie against the orders of the Panchayati Adalat, It confers jurisdiction on the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to revise the orders of the Panchayati Adalat in criminal matters; in civil matters the powers have been conferred on the Munsif and in revenue matters on the sub-divisional officer concerned. This section, however, does not provide for any period of limitation within which a revision is to be filed. Section 83 provides that the Code of Civil Procedure, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Limitation Act shall not apply to any suit, case or proceedings in a Panchayati adalat except as provided in this Act or as may be prescribed.