GANGA RAM Vs. BHABICHHAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for quashing an order of conviction and a sentence of fine imposed upon the petitioner by a bench of the Gram Gutcherry by an order dated 25-11-1951. The application is for an exercise of the power of superintendence vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was convicted of the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 22/-or in default simple imprisonment for two weeks by a bench of the Gram Cutcherry at Haripur Pusa in the district of Darbhanga, constituted under Section 57 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. There was an appeal to the Full Bench of the Gram Cutcherry under Section 67 of the said Act, which was heard by twelve 'Panches' on 30-6-1952. The 'Panches', with one dissentient member, dismissed the appeal.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the opposite party, the complainants, on whose complaint the case against the petitioner was instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged four points in support of the rule. His first point is that the offence as disclosed by the petition of complaint was one under Section 342, I. P. C. and the Grain Cutcherry had no jurisdiction to try that offence. Learned counsel has referred us to the provisions of Section 62 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Having perused the petition of complaint, which was placed before us by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that the allegations which the opposite party made were substantially allegations of an offence under Section 323, I. 'P. C. Under Section 62 of tho Eihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, a bench of the Gram Cut-cherry had jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 323, I. P. C. committed within the local limits of their jurisdiction. The first point urged on behalf of the petitioner must, therefore, be overruled.

(3.) Secondly, it has been contended that in the appeal, which was preferred to the Full Bench of the Gram Cutcherry, the appellant was not heard and a decision was given without hearing the appellant. When we pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner that the ordersheet of the Gram Cutcherry dated 30-3-1952, clearly showed that the appellant was duly heard by the twelve 'Panches'1 who decided the appeal., learned counsel was candid enough to concede that he was not in a position to press his second point. I may state here that by mistake the word 'bad!' has been translated as the complainant. The name of the appellant (Petitioner before us) was Ganga Ram Jha and his name was clearly mentioned as the 'badi' (appellant) who was heard by the 'Panches'. The second point mooted by learned counsel for the petitioner probably arose out of the wrong translation made here of the word 'badi'.