REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BHAGIRATHI Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND V. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS [REFERRED TO]
SAMPLE V. HAGER [REFERRED TO]
THE COLONIAL BANK OF AUSTRALASIA V. WILLAN [REFERRED TO]
PARK GATE IRON AND CO. LTD. V. COATES [REFERRED TO]
PENCE V. LANGDON [REFERRED TO]
MCCLAUGHRY V. DEMING [REFERRED TO]
VENNER V. GREAT NORTHERN RLY. CO. [REFERRED TO]
NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM SHIP BUILDING CORPN. [REFERRED TO]
INDUSTRIAL ADDITION ASSOCIATION V. COMMR. OF INTERNAL REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
PATTON V. U.S. [REFERRED TO]
TEXTILE MILLS SECURITIES CORPN. V. COMMR. OF INTERNAL REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
BINDERUP V. PATHO EXCHANGE [REFERRED TO]
RYOTS OF GARABANDHO V. ZAMINDAR OF PARLAKIMEDI [REFERRED TO]
PROVINCE OF BOMBAY VS. KHUSHALDAS S ADVANI SINCE DECEASED AND AFTER HIM HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE A GOVINDRAM KHUSHALDAS AND B RAMCHAND KHUSHALDAS [REFERRED TO]
UNION COMMERIAL BANK LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
WARYAM SINGH VS. AMARNATH [REFERRED TO]
JIWA RAM VS. PANCHAITI ADALAT [REFERRED TO]
MUSAI BHANT VS. GANGA CHARAN AND STATE U P [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR TEWARI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
JODHEY VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
KAMESHWARA SINGH VS. BHARAT KOERI [REFERRED TO]
GIRJA PRASAD VS. ZALIM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAR SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ NANDAN VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
RAMRANBIJAYA PRASAD SINGH VS. RAM KAWAL UPADHYA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my brother Desai. I agree with him that the panchayati Adalat is not bound by the provisions of the Criminal P. C. and if for the three offences it did not pass separate sentences, it cannot be said that the sentence is illegal provided the sentence passed by it is within its competence.

(2.) AS regards the second contention that the bench was not constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 (2), Panchayat Raj Act, two points were raised before us: firstly, that the decision was given by as many as seven panches and, secondly, that there was only one panch from village Hajiganj to which the complainant and the accused belonged while there should have been two.

(3.) AS regards the first point, we gave the appellant an opportunity to establish that the bench consisted of more than five panches or that more than five panches had taken part in the proceedings or pronounced, the judgment. Learned counsel admitted that he had no instructions on the point and was not able to substantiate the same. The affidavit in support of the allegation has not been properly sworn and cannot, therefore, be relied upon.

Click here to view full judgment.

BHAGIRATHI Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address