STATE Vs. LALTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned two revisions have been referred to a Division Bench because a question of law of some importance called for decision.

(2.) The cases, out of which these two revisions arose, were tried by Magistrates as in both cases complaints had been filed alleging that offences punishable under Section 323 and Section 440, Penal Code had been committed by the accused. In Criminal Revision No. 959 of 1953 the learned Magistrate who tried the case convicted the accused both under Section 440 and Section 323, I. P. C. The Magistrate awarded a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 440 I. P. C. and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- each under Section 323, I. P. C. In Criminal Revision No. 2036 of 1953 also the Magistrate convicted the accused both under Section 323 and Section 440 I. P. C. He awarded a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- to each accused under Section 323 and a similar sentence of .six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 150/- to each accused under Section 440, I. P. C.: the sentences of imprisonment, however, were directed to run concurrently. Appeals were preferred in both the cases by the convicted accused and the appeals were heard by the respective Sessions Judges. The appeal, out of which Criminal Revision No. 959 of 1953 has arisen, was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur, Mr. C. A, Buck, while the appeal, out of which Criminal Revision No. 2036 of 1953 has arisen, was heard by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, Mr. Tamil Ahmad. The Additional Sessions Judge of jaunpur while disposing of the appeal, which had been preferred to him, came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 440, I. P. C, had not been made out on the evidence and that the only offence that had been made out on the evidence was an offence punishable under Section 323, I. P. C. The learned Judge, therefore, made the following order:

(3.) Two revisions were preferred against the two aforementioned decisions to this Court. In the Jaunpur case it was the complainant that preferred the revision and his main contention was that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the trial Court with the direction to send the case for trial 'de novo' to a Panchayati Adalat. The revision in the Gorakhpur case was filed by the accused and their main contention was that the learned Sessions Judge having found that the offences, which had been made out on the evidence being offences punishable under Section 323 and Section 426, Penaf Code and these offences being triable exclusively by the Panchayati Adalat, by virtue of Section 52, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, could not be tried by the Magistrate. The two revisions, therefore, raise a common question of law, namely, whether there was power vested in an appellate Court to remand a case for trial to a Panchayati Adalat when that Court found that the offences which had been made out on the evidence were such offences as were, so to speak, exclusively triable by a Panchayati Adalat. The answer to this question, in our judgment, depends upon the true interpretation of Section 56, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act as it stood before its amendment in 1955 by U. P. Act 2 of 1955. Section 56, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act is in these words: