SATYANARAIN SAH Vs. BISHWANATH SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Satyanarain Sah, being aggrieved by the order of the Full Bench of the Gram Cutchery, Parsa Bazar, convicting him for an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month as also to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week, has come up to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The opposite party, Bishwanath Sah, who is also a resident of the same village as the petitioner, namely Parsa Bazar, lodged a complaint against him before the Sarpanch stating that on the 16th of May, 1954, at about 7 p.m., the petitioner entered his shop premises and ran away with a lantern worth Rs. 49/-. The petitioner was duly summoned to stand his trial. He pleaded that there were certain disputes between him and the complainant and, on that account, he was falsely implicated in the case. The Bench of the Gram Cutchery duly constituted after the nomination of the Punches by the petitioner and the Complainant acquitted him of the charge. Chhabi Sah, the Punch nominated by the complainant, however, refused to sign the order. The opposite party thereupon took an appeal to the Full Bench of the Gram Cutchery consisting of ten Punches including the Sarpanch, Madan Misser. The Full Bench examined some witnesses and perused the record of the case. On a consideration of the evidence, the Full Bench held that the petitioner in fact had run away with a petromax light from the house of the complainant and, accordingly found him guilty. He was sentenced as stated above. It appears, however, that the petitioner put in an application before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chapra, under Sections 70 and 73 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, for withdrawal of the case from the Gram Cutchery on the allegation that the Sarpanch was hostile to him and most of the other Punches were also under his influence. Bishwa-nath Sah was a rich and influential businessman of the locality and he was in a position to enlist the support and sympathy of the Sarpanch and the other Punches. This application was not finally disposed of but an order granting stay of the hearing of the appeal by the Full Bench of the Gram Cutchery was made. The hearing was, accordingly postponed. In the meantime, an application was filed by Bishwanath Sah in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 19th August, 1954, to the effect that the Criminal. Case filed by him before the Full Bench of the Gram Cutchery, which was pending disposal before the Gram Cutchery, was stayed by the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate. Since it was being inordinately delayed, it was necessary that proper orders should be passed in the case. Accordingly, on 14th March, 1955, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate vacated the order of stay and directed the Full Bench of the Gram Cutchery, Parsa Bazar, to proceed to bear the appeal. He also ordered a copy of the order to be sent to the Sarpanch of the Gram Cutchery. The Full Bench, accordingly, took up the hearing and on the 18th March, 1955, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the original Bench of the Gram Cutchery and convicted the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon made a further application under Section 73 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act praying for setting aside the order of the Full Bench of the Gram Cutchery on the ground of miscarriage of justice. On the 1st June, 1955, however, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate rejected that application as well on the ground that the Full Bench, of the Gram Cutchery having disposed of the appeal pending before it under Section 67 of the Act, he was incompetent under Section 73 (3) of the Act to interfere any longer with the proceeding, inasmuch as the decision of the Full Bench was made final under Section 67 of the Act, which was also made clear under Section 73 (3) of the Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the view of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate refusing to decide his application on merits is erroneous and amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction which the law has clearly vested in him. If he had decided the application under Section 73 on merits, whatever bis decision might be adjudging the allegations of the petitioner, it might not be open to interference by this COurt so far as the allegations were concerned, but he refused to enter into the question altogether so that his order dated the 1st June, 1955, must be set aside by this Court in its jurisdiction of superintendence. He has further contended that even the Previous order of the learned Sub-divisional Officer on the application by the petitioner under Section 70, which was disposed of by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 14th March, 1955, was bad in law, inasmuch as the order was passed without hearing him. In support of his first contention, he has referred us to the relevant sections of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and to a decision of this Court. The relevant sections of the Act are Sections 59, 60 and 67 and Rule 59 of the Statutory Rules issued by the State Government under Section 80 of the Act. Learned counsel has also referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Mukhlal Gir v. The State, 1955 BLJR 416 at p. 419 (A), wherein also an identical question with regard to the jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate under Section 73 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act to interfere with a proceeding before the Gram Cutchery was raised and considered. In that case a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of my learned brother and myself, expressed the following opinion:

(3.) In the result, it must be held that the view expressed by the Court in Mukhlal Gir's case (A) referred to above laid down the law correctly and that view must be re-affirmed.