A Gram Cutcherry is not bound to follow any law of evidence or procedure other than the procedure prescribed by or under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

B.D.Singh, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by three petitioners, namely, Jokhan Singh, Baleshwar Singh and Vijay Narain Singh, against the judgment of the sub-divisional officer, opposite party No. 7, passed under Section 73 of the Bihar Panchayat Hai Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) confirming the judgment and order of the Gram Cutcherry dated the 18th April, 1969, convicting petitioner No. 1 under Section 357 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 2/- and in default to undergo 12 hours simple imprisonment; petitioner No. 2 under Sec.294 of the Code and sentencing him to pay a fine of Re. 1/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 hours and petitioner No. 3 under Sections 323 and 294 of the Code and sentencing him under the former section to a fine of Rs. 2/- and under the latter Section Re. 1/- and in default of payment of fines under those two sections simple imprisonment for one day.

2. A case was instituted against the petitioners at the instance of Marjad Koeri (opposite party No. 1) on the allegation that on the 30th January, 1968, while Marjad Koeri was returning with a bundle of grass, he saw petitioners 2 and .3 removing the branches from his bamboo clump, on which he protested, whereupon petitioner No. 3 asked opposite party No. 1 to go away, otherwise he would assault him and he began to abuse him. In the meantime Jokhan, petitioner No, 1, also came there and he ordered them to assault opposite party No. 1 and he himself began to abuse him. Thereafter petitioner No. 3 gave one lathi blow on opposite party No. 1. His further case was that petitioners 1 and 2 had removed all the branches of his bamboo clump. It was alleged that he had incurred a loss of Rs. 10.00 due to the said action of the petitioners. Opposite party No. 1 then filed a complaint before the Gram Cutcherry, a true copy of which is Annexure 1 to the present application. Subsequently, a petition was filed by the petitioners before opposite party No. 7 under Section 73 of the Act to the effect that there was enmity between the Sarpanch and Daroga Singh, father of petitioner No. 3, uncle of petitioner No. 2 and nephew of petitioner No. 1, and, therefore, in the said petition they prayed for transferring the case from the Gram Cutcherry to another Gram Cutcherry or withdrawing it to his court to be tried by some Magistrate, but the same was rejected by an order dated the 9th September, 1968. The members of the Gram Cutcherry examined witnesses in their court, who were produced on behalf of the opposite party No. 1. They also made local inspection and made enquiry from the neighbouring people and from them they learnt that the occurrence as alleged by the opposite party No. 1 was correct. In their Judgment dated the 18th April, 1968, they observed that from the evidence of the witnesses of opposite party No. 1 and from the inquiry made by them in the local inspection as well as from the version of the neighbouring people it was clear that the story of occurrence, as alleged by opposite party No. 1 was correct and therefore, they convicted and sentenced the petitioners, as mentioned above.

3. On the 23rd May, 1969, the petitioners filed another application before the Sub-divisional officer stating therein that about 1 1/2 months earlier a date was fixed by the Gram Cutcherry for examination of witnesses and although the petitioners appeared before the Gram Cutcherry no action was taken. The petitioners were not even informed of the date to which the proceeding was adiourned by the Gram Cutcherry. The sub-divisional officer on their application called for a report from the Gram Panchayat Supervisor of Ramgarh Block, who submitted a report dated the 24th July, 1969, a true copy of which is Annexure 3 to this application. In the said report he had mentioned: (a) final orders in the case of the petitioners were