JUGINDER SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by Joginder Singh Petitioner, raises the important question as to whether a District Magistrate in an application under Section 51 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can convict a person who has been acquitted by the Gram Panchayat. It arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) AMAR Singh filed an application under Section 51 of the Act to the Court of Executive Magistrate, Malerkotla, who was exercising the powers of a District Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the version of the complainant was straight forward and that the discrepancies referred to by the Gram Panchayat were not material. He accordingly, set aside the order of the Panchayat and convicted Joginder Singh under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20/ -. Gurnam Kaur was given the benefit of the doubt and was held to have been rightly acquitted by the Panchayat.

(3.) SO far as the word "modify" used in Section 51 of the Act is concerned, it is contended that modification implies an alteration which introduces new elements into the details, but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject matter intact. Reference in this connection has been made to Aiyer's Law Lexicon of British India which supports the contention of the learned Counsel. Reference lias also been made to case Imperatrix v. Rama Prema, I.L.R. 4 Bom. 239 wherein it was held that the word "modify" cannot be deemed to include the power of enouncing the sentence. The contentions of Mr. Vinayak prime facie appear to be well -founded. In view, however, of the importance of the question and to ensure an authoritative pronouncement on the subject, I am of the view that the matter should be decided by a larger Bench. I, accordingly, direct that the papers may be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for retiring the matter to a larger Bench.