LACHMAN SINGH Vs. GHANSHIYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order of the panchayati Adalat of village Barwan district Hardoi.

(2.) IT appears that a complaint under Sections 323 and 325, I. P. C. was instituted in the Court of a magistrate against the applicant by one Ghanshyam. As the Magistrate found that the case was triable by a Panchayati Adalat it was transferred to the Panchayati Adalat for disposal. It held the charge under Section 323, I. P. C. proved against the applicant and he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 80/ -. Towards the close of the judgment of the Panchayati Adalat it was also mentioned that the accused should be ordered to furnish bail bonds. The applicant was aggrieved by this order and went in revision to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but the revision was dismissed. He has now come up to this Court in revision.

(3.) THE first point which has been urged on behalf of the applicant is that no oath was administered to the witnesses for the prosecution and as such the evidence relied upon by the panchayati Adalat could not be taken into consideration in finding the applicant guilty. The only basis on which this plea has been raised is that there is no mention in the record of the evidence of the witnesses that oath had been administered except in the case of one witness. From this omission it is sought to be inferred that no oath had been administered to the witnesses. This point was taken up before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but was given up and was not pressed. An affidavit has been filed by the complainant that oath had actually been administered to the witnesses and the contention that no oath had been administered to the witnesses was not correct. There is a mention in the record of the proceedings dated 7-10-1952, that the chaukidar Murli refused to take oath. This shows that the Panchayati Adalat was alive to the question of administering oath to witnesses and there is, therefore, no reason to believe that oath was not administered to the witnesses.