BINDESHWARI PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant, who is a resident and Sabhapati of Gramsabha Balapur, police station Kotwali, District Rae Bareli, has been charged under Section 162 and in the alternative under Section 163, I.P.C. for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 12 on the 25th February, 1954, from one Surajbali. The allegation against him was that Surajbali had filed a complaint against one Manni Mahraj in the Panchayati Adalat, Salimpur Seeki, and the accused had assured him that he would get the complaint decided in his favour. Surajbali approached the district authorities before paying the money to the accused and thereafter a trap was laid in which a Magistrate and the Kotwal took part and Rs. 12 in one rupee notes are recovered from the pocket of the Appellant. The case was tried under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act XLVI of 1952) and he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant has taken objection to the legality of the trial as according to his contention, under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act no trial under Section 162 or 163 of the Indian Penal Code could be held. Section 6 reads as follows:

(3.) THE next question is as to whether this case should be sent back for trial to a Magistrate under the ordinary law. In one sense the matter is quite serious but the accused himself was not a member of the Panchayati Adalat and secondly he has already had one trial before the sessions court and he had to come here in appeal to have his conviction set aside. I do not think at this stage a fresh trial should be ordered.