Judgement

JAGANNADHADAS J. : This is an appeal by leave granted by the High Court of Allhahabad presumably under Art. l34(1) (c) of the Constitution.

2. The facts are simple. Three persons including the appellant were, at the material time, parcel, porters at the railway station Manikpur in the district Banda of Uttar Pradesh. On the night of 18-6-1952, they were found by two watchmen of the Watch and Ward staff attached to the railway station, committing theft of certain packets of biscuits by breaking open a railway parcel containing those packets, which as parcel porters, they had occasion to handle. First information of the same was lodged, before the Sub-Inspector, Railway Police, by one Ram Prasad, Head Watchman:

The Railway Police filed the charge-sheet under S. 379. Penal Code on 20-6-1952. The case was taken cognizance of by the Railway Magistrate, Manikpur. All the three accused pleaded guilty. They were convicted by the Magistrate on 15-7-1952, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 each. Against this conviction the present appellant filed a revision to the Sessions Judge of Banda. It is necessary at this stage to mention that under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the Panchayati Adalats in U.P, have criminal jurisdiction in certain matters. The point taken before the Sessions Judge was that by virtue of the said Act, the present case should have been tried by the Panchayati Adalat and that the Railway Magistrate had no jurisdiction.

This contention was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. He accordingly made a reference to the High Court for quashing the conviction and sentence. It came before a Single Judge of the High Court who did not feel quite satisfied that the Railway Magistrate had jurisdiction . But without deciding the question one way or the other, he declined to accept the reference on the ground that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was discretionary. Somewhat curiously however, the learned Judge granted a certificate against his own judgment that the case is a fit one for appeal to the SC. If the learned Judge thought fit to grant leave to appeal, he might well have himself decided the question involved so that we should have had the benefit of his consideration of the same.

3. To decide the question of jurisdiction thus raised it is necessary to notice the scheme of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (U. P. Act 26 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a few relevant sections of the same. It may be mentioned that the Act appears to have undergone some amendments in the year 1952 and recently in 1955. These amendments have no application to the present case. Under the Act, as it stood at the time of the commission of the offence and the conviction therefor, the scheme thereunder is as follows:

Under S. 3, the State Government shall by notification in the official Gazette, establish a Gaon Sabba for every village or group of villages. Under S. 42, the State Government or the prescribed authority shall divide a district into circles, each circle comprising as many areas subject to the jurisdiction of Gaon Sabhas as may be expedient. The State Government shall also establish Panchayati Adalats for each such circle, provided that the areas of Gaon Sabhas within each circle shall as far as possible, be contiguous. Under S. 43. every Gaon Sabba in a circle shall elect five adults of prescribed qualification permanently residing within its jurisdiction to act as Panchas in the Panchayati Adalat of that circle. The Panches so elected by all the Gaon Sabhas in a circle shall form a panel.

Under S. 44 all the Panches elected under S. 43 shall elect from among themselves a person who is able to record proceedings and to act, as Sarpanch of the Panchayati Adalat. As will be seen from the subsequent sections the Panchayati Adalat has jurisdiction to deal with all disputes and cases, both civil and criminal, arising within its area but it is enough for the present case to notice only those portions