BHOPAT Vs. NYAYA PANCHAYAT KOLARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed by Gopal Prasad before the Nyaya Panchayat, Kolari in the District of Bharatpur against the petitioners Bhopat, Roshan and Pothi in respect of offences under sections 447 and 506 I. P. C. , A Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat consisting of three Panchas examined the complainant and his witness Jiwa Ram and having felt satisfied that the complaint was not frivolous, vexatious or untrue, issued summons to the three petitioners directing them to appear before the Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat on September 7, 1969. On the last mentioned date, the petitioners Bhopat and Roshan were present, but Pothi petitioner was absent The complainant examined four witnesses including himself in support of the complaint and thereafter the statements of two accused Roshan and Bhopat, who were present, were recorded by the Nyaya Panchayat. The Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat came to the conclusion that the offences under secs. 447 and 506 I. P. C. were fully established by the evidence on record and they sentenced each one of the three accused petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ each. The three petitioners preferred a revision petition against the aforesaid order of the Nyaya Panchayat before the Munsif Magistrate, Dholpur, who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the revision petition by his order dated April 22, 1971.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat as well as the order passed by the Munsif Magistrate, while dismissing the revision petition preferred by them before him. The main contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that although the two petitioners Bhopat and Roshan were present before the Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat on September 7, 1969, yet no hearing took place on that day and the petitioners were informed that the hearing of the matter was adjourned to Sep ember 21, 1969. Thus according to the petitioners, there was denial of an opportunity of hearing in the matter and thus there was a breach of the provisions of Sec. 48 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and of the provisions of Rule 144 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). It was also argued that neither the petitioners were allowed any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant nor they were afforded an opportunity to examine their evidence in defence. The record of the proceedings of the Nyaya Panchayat, Kolari in case No. 1 of 1969 was called by this Court and I have perused the same. It appears from an examination of the aforesaid record that summons were duly served on all the three petitioners and from the order-sheet dated September 7, 1969 it is clear that two of the petitioners, Bhopat and Roshan were present while Pothi petitioner was absent on that date. It also appears from the perusal of the aforesaid record that the witnesses produced by the complainant were examined in the presence of the aforesaid two accused persons, and thereafter the statements of both the accused, who were present on that date, namely, Bhopat and Roshan, were recorded. Thus, the case of the petitioners that the statements of the witnesses of the complainant were not recorded in their presence or that they were not given an opportunity of hearing in the case by the Nyaya Panchayat appears to be false. The order-sheet dated September 7, 1969 also reveals that the two accused persons who were present refused to examine any evidence in defence. It was, therefore, not necessary for the Nyaya Panchayat to adjourn the hearing of the case when the petitioners, who were present, did not desire to examine any defence evidence in the case nor they sought any adjournment for that purpose. So far as the accused petitioners Bhopat and Roshan are concerned, I do not find that either the provisions of the Act or of the Rules were violated in any manner nor there appears to be any infringement of the principles of natural justice. It is also apparent from the order passed by the Munsif Magistrate that the petitioners did not allege any violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules before him, nor it was argued before him that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing or of cross-examining the witnesses produced by the complainant or of examining their evidence in defence by the Nyaya Panchayat. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and absence of a proper hearing by the Nyaya Panchayat in the case cannot be accepted, so far as petitioners Roshaa and Bhopat are concerned.