MEENA RAM Vs. DWARKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MINA Ram petitioner was convicted by Magistrate, 1st Class, Kandaghat under section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. His petition for revision was referred by the learned Sessions Judge with the recommendation that the conviction be set aside as illegal because of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 67 of the Pepsu Panchayat Raj Act, 2008bk. As an Adalat was in existence and was competent to try the aforesaid case, the question agitated was whether the jurisdiction of the Magistrate was ousted. This petition came up before Chopra J. and by an order dated 9-6-1955 it has been referred to a larger Bench.

(2.) IN orcler to decide the question which has been referred it is necessary to examine the scheme of the Pepsu Panchayat Raj Act, 2008 Bk, (hereinafter called the Act ). According to Section 54 of the Act, the Government or the prescribed authority may divide any district into circles, each circle comprising one or more sabha areas, and establish a Panchayati Adalat for each circle. It is next provided by Section 55 that the Panchayati Adalats may be classified as class I and class II adalat for the purpose of discharging judicial functions. Section 65 gives jurisdiction to the Adalat to try the offences mentioned in the Schedules as well as in the section itself. It is common ground that an offence under Section 323, indian Penal Code, would be within the jurisdiction of the Adalat. Section 67 provides as follows :

(3.) FOR all these reasons, it must be held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case and was bound to transfer the same to an Adalat of competent jurisdiction.