MUNSHI RAM Vs. DHARMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, act ing under section 39 of the Punjab Village Pan chayat Act, whereby he set aside the conviction of the respondent by the Panchayat of an offence under section 323/326, I.P.C.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that in passing this order, the District Magistrate has not given a finding that there was a failure of justice before the Panchayat and, there fore, the order under section 39 was vitiated. Section 39, it may be pointed out, empowers the District Magistrate to cancel or modify any order of a Panchayat, provided he is satisfied that there has been a failure of justice. This petition is styled as a "miscellaneous Criminal Revision Petition". At the last hearing, I requested learn ed counsel for the petitioner to point out how the revision petition lay, having regard to the pro visions of section 54 of the Punjab Village Pan chayat Act, which provides that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act do not apply to the proceedings before the Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply in the present case, this court, under Arti cle 227 of the Constitution, supervises all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territory over which it exercises jurisdiction. He cited - Rakhu V/s. Emperor , 1944 AIR(Lah) 218 (A), where it was held by the Punjab High Court that under section 561 A, Cr. P. C., a High Court can inter fere if on an examination of the record, it appears that the order of the Magistrate, who has functioned under section 39, Panchayat Act, was not in consonance with Law. Reliance was also placed on - 'Harnam Singh V/s. Gurnam Singh', 1952 AIR(Pepsu) 130 (B), where it was held that the powers of superintendence under Article 227 are not confined to administrative matters. Patent errors of law committed by any Court subordinate to the High Court can be corrected by the High Court under Article 227. A similar view was taken by the High Court of Allahabad in - Jodhey V/s. State , 1952 AIR(All) 788 (C).

(3.) With this background, let us examine the order of the District Magistrate dated 30-4-1953, which has been assailed before me on the ground that it is not in accordance with law. A perusal of this order would show that the Dis trict Magistrate was of the opinion that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and it had wrongly been taken to the Panchayat in the form of a criminal complaint. He there fore, set aside the conviction of the respondent and referred the parties to the civil court. It is true that the District Magistrate has not said in so many words that a failure of justice had occurred before the Panchayat but this, in my opinion, is clearly implied. Unless the District Magistrate thought that there had been a failure of justice, it does not stand to reason that he would have interfered. I am not satisfied, there fore, that the order of the District Magistrate is not in consonance with law. Accordingly, the revision petition fails and is dismissed.