MANRAKHANLAL Vs. S.N. CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent appeal is from an order of Sen J. rejecting summarily a petition filed by the appellants under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality of their convictions under Sections 323 and 352, I.P.C. by the Nayaya Panchayat of Bhilai. The appellants' main contention before the learned Single Judge was that the Civil Judge, First Class, During who heard a revision petition against the decision of the Nayaya Panchayat, was not invested with any power to hear criminal revisions under the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayat Act, 1946. This was rejected by the learned Single Judge. As to other objections he took the view that as they were not urged before the Civil Judge they could not be considered in proceedings under Article 226.

(2.) BEFORE us, Shri Choubey, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat was without jurisdiction inasmuch as three panchas who sat while the evidence in the case was being recorded did not give the final decision, which was given by some other three panchas. It was also said that the accused were cross -examined by the complainant and the answers elicited in cross -examination influenced the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat.

(3.) THERE is good authority for the proposition that in the matter of the issue of a writ of certiorari the High Court has a special jurisdiction and not ordinary jurisdiction, and that a question of jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be raised in a petition where no objection to the jurisdiction has been taken before the tribunal whose order or proceedings are being challenged. In King Vs. William (1914) I.K.B. 608, a person applied for a writ of certiorari to quash an order made by Justices on the ground that one of the Justices was an interested party and disqualified to try him. It was held in that case that the applicant was not entitled to the writ ex debito Justitiae because knowing the disqualification he had chosen to stand by during the hearing before the Justices without taking any objection. Channell J. pointed out: -