JALAMSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners Jalamsingh, Ramsingh and Sukka were tried by the Nyaya Panchayat Unhel for offences under Sections 426 and 447 I. P. C. They were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each. Their petitions for revision of the order were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. They have therefore come up in revision under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code and Article 227 of the Constitution. In the title to the petition only Jamalsingh has been named as the applicant but the petition purports to be on behalf of all the applicants and has been signed as such by their Counsel. The discrepancy however is not material.

(2.) THE only point that has been pressed in revision before me is that as the Nyaya Panchayat failed to try that the parties may comprise the dispute as required by Section 66 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Vidhan, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the subsequent trial was without jurisdiction. It is argued that the provisions of Section 66 are mandatory and omission to comply with them vitiates the trial.

(3.) THE question whether the provisions of a particular enactment are mandatory or directory is generally fraught with difficulty. Section 66 of the Madhya Bharat Act imposes a duty on the Nyaya Panchayat in the interest of the parties before it. As regards the interpretation of enactments imposing such public duties it has been observed by Maxwell in his 'Interpretation of Statutes, X Edn. page 376 as follows: -