BISUNTHA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the judgment of the Panchayati Adalat Satnyao, police station Baberu, district Banda dated 5-1-1951 be quashed.

(2.) The complaint was filed by one Sarju before the Panchayati Adalat against seventeen persons. His allegation was that the six applicants before us had given him a beating, and they along with four others had restrained him from proceeding towards his house. The allegations made in the complaint show that the six applicants were accused of having committed offences under Section 323 & also Section 341, I. P. C., but the other four were accused only of the offence under 8, 341, I. P. C., that is, wrongful restraint. As stated above the complainant had mentioned seven more persons as accused before the Panchayati Adalat, but the Panchayati Adalat acquitted these seven and it will not be necessary to mention them any more in this judgment.

(3.) A revision against the order of the Panchayati Adalat convicting the other ten was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 85, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate appears to have been under a slight misapprehension as to the offence under which the ten applicants before him had been convicted & also as to the fines imposed upon them under the two sections. What the Panchayati Adalat did was that it sentenced the six applicants before us to a fine of Rs. 40/- each under Section 323. I. P. C. and to a fine of Rs. 25/- each under Section 841, I. P. C. The other four accused were convicted only under Section 341, I. P. C. and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25/- each under the said section. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order dated 19-3-1951 says that it appeared from the statement of the prosecution witnesses that the six applicants assaulted the complainant. He appears to have totally ignored their conviction under Section 341, I. P. C. As there was no case of assault against the other four he acquitted them saying that no charge was established against them. As regards the six appellants the Magistrate thought that the fines imposed upon them were excessive and, therefore, reduced them to Rs. 40/- each. Here again the Magistrate omitted to notice the fact that the fine against the applicants under Section 323, I. P. 0. was only a fine of Rs. 40/- each, and the rest of the fine of Rs. 25/- each was with respect to their conviction under Section 341, I. P. C. The Magistrate wrongly thought that the applicants had been sentenced to Rs. 65/- each under Section 323, I. P. C. and he was reducing the sentence from Rs. 65/- to Rs. 40/- under Section 323, I. P. C.