KAMLAPATI PANTH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case on the 10 of December 1924, a panchayat held under the U.P. Act (6 of 1920) convicted Kamlapati. Panth, Parkhotam Panth and Sheo Datt Panth under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay fines of Rs. 7, Rs. 5 and Rs. 5 respectively. The order of the panchayat refers to the statements of the complainant and two of his witnesses, and briefly to three witnesses produced on behalf of the accused. The order does not state whether the witnesses of the complainant or the witnesses of the accused are on their merits believed or disbelieved, but it continues "on private enquiry, it appears that the accused used abusive language (against the complainant) and slapped him."

(2.) The next step was an application made by the accused to the Deputy Commissioner, Almorah, under Section 71 of the Local Act (VI of 1920). The principal objection set out in that petition to the order of the panchayat is to be found in paragraph No. 3 of the petition where it is alleged that: "it appears that the panchas made certain enquiries behind the back of the petitioners and without any information to them, upon which the panchas order is based." This appears to be a fair statement of the order of the panchayat. That petition had been duly stamped apparently on the 2 March, 1925, and it was filed in this Court on the 17 of March 1925 with the revisional application, with which we at present have to deal. We are informed by counsel for the applicants that the petition was presented to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) of Almorah, but was returned to the applicants with a verbal intimation that they should go to the High Court. This instruction to counsel, who has further communicated it to us, is not supported by affidavit, but we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the instruction given to counsel in view of the presence of the petition itself and its appearance. At the first hearing of this application on which Mr. Das, counsel for the applicant, was unable to be present, we had to consider for some time the intricate question as to whether a village panchayat under Act 6 of 1920 was a "Court" and whether, if so, this Court had any power to interfere with its decisions. We had not at the time before us the history of the petition to the Collector to which we have referred.

(3.) It appears clear to us that our present order must be guided by the general principle that where a lower Court has jurisdiction, an application must be made to that lower Court first and its order obtained thereon before the superior Court is asked to exercise such jurisdiction as it may think fit. In this case we have no information before us as to why the Collector refused to pass any orders on the petition and why he returned it to the applicants, if ha did so with instructions to apply to the High Court. We must therefore order the applicants to make their application again to the Collector accompanied by a copy of this order and invite the Collector to deal with it under Section 71 of Act 6 of 1920. That is sufficient for the disposal of this application.