JEE ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Doubts about the supposed enhancement of the criminal jurisdiction of the Gram Cutcherry to take cognizance of offences under Sections 379, 380, 381 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code under Section 62 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act have necessitated this reference to the larger Bench.

(2.) The facts need recounting with relative brevity on a complaint preferred by opposite-party No. 2 the two petitioners along with three co-accused were brought to trial before the subdivisional Judicial Magistrate of Hajipur. The gravamen of the offence alleged against the accused persons was that they had removed 21 ghauds of banana fruits worth Rs. 150/- from the orchard of the complainant. In an exhaustive judgment, the trial court accepted the prosecution case and rejecting the defence version convicted the two petitioners under Sections 144 and 379, I. p. C and sentenced them to simple imprisonment of two months under the former Section and of four months under the latter. The other three co-accused were acquired of all charges. On appeal, the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali, in a considered judgment, upheld the findings of the trial court and affirming the conviction, reduced the sentences.

(3.) It is significant to note that neither before the trial court nor before the appellate one was any objection, even remotely, raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts to take cognizance. However, in the present revision petition it was alleged that the value of the property stolen being Rs. 150/- the case was execusively triable by the Gram Cutcherry of Milepakari Gram Panchayat. Reliance was apparently sought to be placed on Bimal Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1965 B. L. J. R 661. when this case originally came up for hearing before S. S. Hasan, J, the submission was raised on the basis of the observation in Bimal Singh's case that the jurisdiction of the Gram Cutcherry to try cases under Section 379 I. P. C. extends to cases where the value of the property is two hundred rupees, which had been raised from Rs. 100/-. However, finding no adequate factual basis for the said observation, the matter was referred to a Division Bench.