PATNA HIGH COURT
Imam and Misra JJ.
Nivas Singh
Versus
Amar Sao
Criminal Revision No. 687 of 1952 ; 688 of 1952 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 23, 1952
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION OF GRAM CUTCHERRY - TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 506, PENAL CODE - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED - SECTIONS 58, 59, 62, 63, 67, 69, 73, BIHAR PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT (7 OF 1948) - RULES 13(1), 57(i) - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was convicted by the Gram Cutcherry for offences under Sections 504 and 506, Penal Code. On appeal, the Full Bench of the Gram Cutcherry dismissed the appeal. The Sub-divisional Magistrate set aside the conviction under Section 504 but upheld the conviction under Section 506.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial of the petitioner was without jurisdiction as the Bench of the Gram Cutcherry had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 58 and 59 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 13(1) of the rules framed under the Act, which require the Bench to make an endeavour to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties in a case arising out of a compoundable offence before proceeding with the trial.
Issues: 1. Whether a Bench of the Gram Cutcherry has jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 506, Penal Code? 2. Whether the Full Bench of the Gram Cutcherry must consist of 15 persons? 3. Whether the trial before the Bench of the Gram Cutcherry was without jurisdiction as the Bench had not complied with the provisions of Section 58 of the Act and Rule 13(1) of the rules framed under the Act? 4. Whether the provisions of Section 57 of the Act had been complied with? 5. Whether the facts alleged by the complainant, even if accepted, disclose an offence punishable under Section 506, Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 62 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act gives jurisdiction to a Bench of the Gram Cutcherry to try cases punishable under Section 506, Penal Code, subject to the Bench exercising the powers of a Magistrate of the third class. 2. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gram Cutcherry shows that it was signed by only 10 panches, and a debatable question might arise as to whether the appeal of the petitioner has been properly disposed of on account of the failure of all the panches to sign the judgment of the appeal Court. 3. Sections 58 and 59 of the Act and Rule 13(1) of the rules framed under the Act require a Bench of the Gram Cutcherry, in a case arising out of a compoundable offence, to endeavour to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties before proceeding with the trial. 4. The petitioner failed to persuade two persons to accept his nomination as panches. It was open to him to proceed to nominate another within the time allowed. If he did not do so, obviously the sarpanch was authorised to nominate one. 5. The facts alleged by the complainant, if accepted, make it quite clear that the petitioner so abused the complainant that he began to run away and was pursued by the petitioner with a brickbat in his hand. This conduct amounted to criminal intimidation.
Final Decision: The court quashed the petitioner's conviction and sentence.
Imam, J.
1. This is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the matter of a writ in the nature of certiorari. The petitioner was convicted by the Gram Cutcherry of Samayagarh for offence punishable under Sec. 504 and Section 506, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine under each section. An appeal to the Full Bench of the Gram Cutcherry was dismissed. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, however, was moved presumabty under Section 73, Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 1947 (Act 7 of 1948). The Sub-divisioral Magistrate was of the opinion that there was no case made out under Sec. 504, and he set aside the conviction. He, however, upheld the conviction under Sec. 506, Penal Code.
2. The case of the complainant before the Gram Cutcherry was that the petitioner had sent his son Kedar Singh to the complainant with a slip bearing his signature asking him to send 10 seers of Khajoor. The complainant refused to supply as it was against the rules of the ration shop to give more than two seers of Khajoor to anybody. On this, the petitioners son Kedar Singh went back and informed the petitioner accordingly. The petitioner came and began to abuse the complainant. The petitioner ran after the complainant with brickbats but he was seized by other person standing there. Thereafter, the petitioner said that he would have killed the complainant but for the fact that his son was ill.
3. The petitioners case was that a false case had been instituted by the complainant. The complainant owed to the petitioner Rs. 600/-which he refused to repay on demand made by the petitioner, and in order to put pressure upon the petitioner the complainant began to abuse the petitioner as a result of which there was exchange of hot words in the course of which the complainant threatened to assault the petitioner with garasa. A totally false case had been brought against the petitioner in order to put pressure upon him.
4. I am not placing in the order of importance the points raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The first point that I will deal with is as to whether Sec. 506 was triable by a beach of the Gram Cutcherry under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. Sec. 62 of the Act specifically provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1893, and subject to the provisions of the Act, a Bench of the Gram Cutcherry shall have jurisdiction concurrent with that of the Criminal Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Bench is situate for the trial of the offences mentioned in Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e). In Clause (a) which concerns the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 506 is clearly stated.
It was, however, argued that under Sec. 63 of the Act, a Bench of the Gram Cutcherry is only vested with the powers of a Magistrate of the third class. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, schedule 2 prepared under Sec.28 of the Code, an offence under Sec. 506, Penal Code, is not triable by a third Class Magistrate. A Magistrate with second class powers is the lowest grade of Magistrate who can try such an offence. The submission of the learned Advocate is, in my opinion, erroneous because Sec. 62 of the Act gives jurisdiction to a Bench of the Gram Cutcherry to try cases punishable under Sec. 506. Reliance, however, was placed on the words to the effect "and subject to the provisions of this Act" for the purpose of showing that as a Bench of the Gram Cutcherry was vested only with the powers of a Magistrate of the third class, such a Bench had no jurisdiction to try an offence under Sec. 506, Penal Code. I do not agree with this submission. The words on which reliance has been placed mean no more than this when read in the context of the words stated in Section 62, namely, that a Bench of the Gram Cutcherry shall have jurisdiction to try an offence under Sec. 506 subject to this that the Bench will be exercising the powers which are exercised by a Magistrate of the third class that is to say, on convict
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.