MAHADEO CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has come on reference by Shambhu Prasad Singh, J. It was contended by Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad .Sinha, counsel for the petitioner, that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner Under Section 323 of the Penal Code were without jurisdiction, as there was a Gram Cutcherry functioning in the village on the date of occurrence. learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the petition of complaint also disclosed an offence under Sec-lion 353 of the Penal Code which was not triable by a Gram Cutcherry, and also that the value of the registers taken away by the petitioner must be held to be above Rs, 100, and on that account also the Gram Cutcherry could not have tried the case. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, there appeared to be some conflict between two Single Judge decisions of this Court, namely, the cases of Jagdish Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1960 BLJR' 200 and Prayag Pasi v. State, and hence this case was referred to a Division Bench for an authoritative decision. The other point on which this application has been referred to is that in the absence of any evidence on the point (which is not on the record of the present case) whether a presumption can be raised that the value of the Bujharat registers was Rs. 100 or more.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution was that on 29-3-1962 the informant Daya-kant Jha, Karamchari, was doing Bujharat and rent collection work in village Maujaha. At about 6 p.m. while he was returning through ghairmazrua am road to his cutcherry in the village located in the da-waza of Kainal Mandal (P.W, 1) he noticed that one Tunai Chaudhary had constructed a house by encroaching upon the road. THE informant asked him to produce documents at the cutcherry in support of his title to the land, failing which necessary action would be taken against him and proceeded towards his cutcherry. THE petitioner intervened in the matter and challenged the authority of the Karamchari. This led to an altercation between them, in course of which the petitioner abused the Karamchari (informant) and chased him with a spade to assault him- THE informant, in order to save his life, ran away from there along with the Government papers; but the petitioner followed him up of the cutcherry, caught hold of him by the neck from behind, assaulted him with fist's arid slaps and snatched his Field Bujharat registersA, B, C, D and E. He also destroyed some pages of those registers and went away with the same.

(3.) A plain reading of Sections 62 and 68 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are exclusively triable by a Bench of the Gram Cutcherry, unless an order to the contrary has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Munsif concerned. In case no such order, as contemplated by Section 68 is passed, the trial of offences falling Under Section 62 by Courts established under the Code of Criminal Procedure must be held to be without jurisdiction (vide Baldeo Singh v. State of Bihar and a Bench decision of this Court in Bimal Singh v. State of Bihar, 1965 BLJR 661).