HADIBANDHU SAHU AND ANR. Vs. TAHSILDAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners are tenants under opposite party No. 2. They were directed to pay rent for the year 1966 -67. by 9 -9 -1967. The Petitioners defaulted and paid the rent on 13 -9 -1967. On account of this delay the Revenue Officer convicted the Petitioners under Section 68 of the Land Reforms Act for contravening the direction to pay rent by 9 -9 -1967. He sentenced them by imposing a fine of Rs. 100/ - on each, in default to Section I. for 7 days. A review application was filed against the impugned order and was rejected on 16 -10 -1968. The writ application has been filed against this order dated 23 -11 -1967 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. No counter has been filed by opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 has filed a counter without asserting that this order was legal.

(2.) MR . Rath on behalf of the Petitioners contends that the Revenue Officer had no power to convict, the Petitioners, and that he was not vested with the powers of a magistrate, nor was there any trial for any offence. This contention requires careful examination.

(3.) IT would thus appear that an offence was created under this Section and sentence was provided therein. Various ingredients prescribed in the Section must be fulfilled before a conviction can be founded upon. There ,are various clauses in the Section. The one under which the Petitioners have been convicted is the first clause laying down a contravention of any lawful order under the Act. There cannot be any dispute that there was a contravention of the lawful order. The short question, however, is whether the Revenue Officer without having the magisterial power can convict the Petitioners for the offence created under Section 68.