KOTVAL C. J. - This criminal revision application has been referred to a Full Bench because it involves the decision of an important and an oft recurring question as to the proper interpretation of section 88 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No. III of 1959).

2. Rangnath Sakharam Pawar the applicant along with Baban Bhagaji Gorane opponent No 2 were charged with offences under sections 323, 447, 504 and 506 [Part (I)] all read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur in Criminal Case No. 1135 of 1968. The Magistrate decided to issue summons only under section 323 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. Before evidence on behalf of the complainant could be recorded, however, a preliminary objection came to be raised on behalf of the accused. The objection was that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur, had no jurisdiction to try those offences because they were offences which were mentioned in section 75 of the Act and, therefore, by virtue of the provisions of section 88 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act the jurisdiction of the Magistrate was barred. Reliance was also placed before the Magistrate upon the judgment of Mr. Justice Kamat in Anna Raghu V. The State,1 in which it has been held that the bar of jurisdiction of the regular criminal Courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure enacted by section 88 to take cognizance of offences specified in section 75 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act was complete and absolute and it was not dependent upon the establishment or existence of a Nyaya Panchayat for the area in question.

3. The learned Magistrate overruled the preliminary objection. He relied upon the provisions of section 63 and section 64 (2) and (3) of that Act and held that the plain reading of section 64(3) of the Panchayats Act makes it clear that unless a Nyaya Panchayat is invested with powers to try certain offences mentioned in section 75 of the Panchayats Act a Nyaya Panchayat ipso facto on its establishment cannot take cognizance of and try all the offences mentioned in section 75 of the Panchayats Act. As regards the decision in Anna Raghus case the learned Magistrate distinguished it on the ground that in that case no Nyaya Panchayat had been established for the area in question while in the case before him a Nyaya Panchayat had been established and was functioning but only the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences in the case i. e. section 323/34, Indian Penal Code before him had not been conferred upon it. He, therefore, held that he could proceed with the trial before· him. That order passed on the preliminary objection is being challenged in the present Criminal Revision Application.

4. The revision application came initially before Mr. Justice Madon before whom again the decision in Anna Raghus case as also a number of subsequent decisions of single Judges of this Court (to which we will presently refer) were relied on. Madon J. pointed out that in Anna Raghus case the offence with which Kamat J. was concerned was an offence under section 52 of the Panchayats Act and that was an offence which was created only under that Act and the ratio of the decision in Anna Raghus case must, therefore, be limited only to offences arising under that Act. In so far as Kamat J. had made further observations in considering section 88 of the Panchayats Act as regards offences under other Acts or under the Indian Penal Code, Madon J. was unable to accept the ratio of the decision in Anna Raghus case. Since similar observations were also made by several single Judges of this Court in subsequent cases, Madon J. thought it fit to refer the Criminal Revision Application to a larger Bench.

5. Unfortunately by, the time the reference came before a Division Bench consisting of my learned brother Malvankar J. and myself the decision of a Division Bench of this Court further intervened. That was the decision of the Divi