N K MUKHARJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 270/79 by Shri Jiwan Tigga, 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa through which the order passed by Shri M. Kindo, S.D.J.M., Seraikella dated 22-11-1979 in G.R. No. 979/74 was duly confirmed and maintained.

(2.) The fact in short for the purpose of this revision is that it has been alleged by the informant, Shyam Narayan Pd. Verma that on 29-12-1974 at about 4.45 p.m. he had gone to market and had seen 50-60 persons being led by Ram Balak Singh, one of the petitioner and Ram Balak Singh assaulted the informant by lathi and Dhananjoy Majhi also assaulted by lathi and other accused persons pelted stones so the informant sustained injury and had gone to hospital where he found Joy Kumar Mishra and Madan Lal also in injured condition. So on that very day FIR was lodged and the police submitted charge-sheet under Seclions 147, 323 and 337 of the IPC and under Section 39 (2) of DIR. The G.R. Case No: 979/74 was tried by SDJM. who vide his judgment dated 22-11-1979 found these four petitioners and two others guilty under Sections 147/323 of the IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month under Section 147 of the IPC and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default R.I. for three months under Section 323 of the IPC and other eight accused persons who were facing trial were acquitted and the petitioner were acquitted under Defence of India Rules and also under Section 337 of the IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction only six convicts preferred the appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 270/79 and that was dismissed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa and conviction and sentence as awarded by the SDJM, Saraikela was confirmed and maintained. Against the order of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa only these four petitioners preferred revision.

(3.) Though various grounds were taken in the revision application challenging the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge but at the time of hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly the trial Court and also the appellate Court simply found the petitioners guilty under Sections 323 and 147 of the IPC and all these offences are exclusively triable by the Gram Panchayat Kutchery and under Section 69 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act the cognizance Court should have transferred the case to the Gram Panchayat Kutchery or at least cancelled the jurisdiction then the regular Court is competent to try the offence. In the instant case the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat Kutchery has not been cancelled. In that view of the matter, the entire cognizance and Trial is vitiated.