JOGINDER SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, Petitioner Joginder Singh, on a complaint by Respondent Amar Singh for simple hurt caused to him by the Petitioner, was acquitted by the Gram Panchayat of village Kakarwal, whereupon Respondent Amar Singh moved the District Magistrate under Section 51 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (Punjab Act 4 of 1953), against the order of acquittal of the Petitioner, and the District Magistrate on May 9, 1962, set aside that order and convicted the Petitioner under Section 323 of the Penal Code awarding him a sentence of fine of Rs. 20. The Petitioner in this petition urges that the District Magistrate had no power under Section 51 or under any other section of Punjab Act 4 of 1953 to set aside the order of acquittal made in his favour by the Gram Panchayat and to convict him as he has done.

(2.) THIS case fist came up for hearing; before Khanna, J., who on consideration of Section 51 of Punjab Act 4 of 1953 was disposed to the view that the order of the District Magistrate is without jurisdiction not being within the scope of that section under which all that the District Magistrate can do is, in a proper case to direct retrial, if he is minded to interfere as has been done in the present case. How ever, the learned Judge has referred the case to a larger Bench because it concerns the powers of the District Magistrate under the particular section of the Act and is a matter that is likely to arise quite fairly often.

(3.) IT is obvious that the District Magistrate under this section can do one of the three things(a) cancel an order, or (b) modify an order, or (c) direct retrial of a criminal case. It is apparent that the word 'cancel' just means that the District Magistrate obliterates or puts an end to the order made by a Gram Panchayat, and it is equally apparent that when he - does that he cannot substitute or make an alternative order for the order of the Gram Panchayat. In so far as the word 'modify' is concerned, again its ordinary and dictionary meaning has to be taken. This word, however, appeared in Section 18(2)1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1872 whereby a Sessions Judge was given power to 'confirm, modify, or annul' a sentence passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge. In Imperatrix v. Rama Prema, I.L.R. 4 Bom 239, the learned Judges held that the word 'modify' in that provision did not include power of enhancing the sentence. In other words, the learned Judges were of the view that while a sentence passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge may be modified by the Sessions Judge by reduction, it was not modifying it when it was enhanced. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary is -'to limit, restrain; to make less severe, rigorous; to tone down; to make a partial change in', and in Webster the meaning given to the word is 'to limit; also to mitigate; assuage; to reduce in extent or degree; to moderate; qualify; lower; to change somewhat the form or qualities of; to alter the same'. It is thus evident that the ordinary meaning of this word which has to be applied in the present case with reference to its use in Sub -section (1) of Section 51 of the Act is partial change or alteration in the order of a Gram Panchayat. It is clear that in the case of order of acquittal, a partial change is an impractical proposition, but in the case of an order of conviction it is obviously a practical proposition. Neither under the word 'cancel' nor the word 'modify' as used in Sub -section (1) of Section 51 is there a power in the District Magistrate to make order on his own convicting a person who has been acquitted by a Gram Panchayat. All that he can do, when he applies the first word of the Sub -section, is to set aside the order of a Gram Panchayat and when he applies the second word to such an order to change or alter it so as to tone it down or make it less rigorous or severe, but no more. So the approach that Khanna, J., was making to the case on consideration of the meanings of these words is correct, and the order of the District Magistrate in this case is not supported by the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 51 of Punjab Act 4 of 1953. It is in substance an order without jurisdiction.