The central legal point established in the judgment is that the trial conducted without cancelling the jurisdiction of the Gram Cutcherry, for offences exclusively triable by a Bench of Gram Cutcherry, is void and the conviction based on such illegal evidence is bad in law.

L. P. N. Shahdeo, J.

1. This revision application is directed against the appellate court judgment dated 25-5-1984 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, samastipur in Criminal Appeal No.458/28 of 1976/1982 affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by Shri Bijay Bahadur Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samastipur convicting the petitioner under Sec.461 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for one month and also under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for one month but both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this case is that a theft of grain worth rs.81.80 paise had taken place in between the night 12/13-11-1989 from katghara at village Baragaon P. S. Hasanpur in the District of Samastipur.

3. The only Legal point argued by Shri S. N. P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the whole trial from beginning to end is vitiated and is void because both the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted are exclusively triable by a Bench of Gram Cutcherry and therefore trial by the regular court is illegal.

4. Admittedly, both the offences under Sections 461 and 380 of the Indian penal Code is exclusively triable by a Bench of Gram Cutcherry under Sec.62 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The value of the property is mentioned as Rs.81.80 paise in the First Information Report and also in the charge framed on 16-9-1975. It is also admitted position that the jurisdiction of the Gram cutcherry was not cancelled on 14-6-1975 when the cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It appears that subsequently this was detected at the stage when all the evidences were recorded and argument was heard on 11-10-1976 and the case was posted for judgment on 1-11-1976. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on receipt of the record, heard on the question of jurisdiction on 11-10-1976 and cancelled the jurisdiction of the gram Cutcherry on 12-11-1976 and thereafter the case was sent back to the court of trying Magistrate who pronounced the jundgment on 8-12-1976.

5. Therefore, the most important point which falls for consideration is as to whether the evidence recorded before the cancellation of the jurisdiction of gram Cutcherry shall be considered as the lawful evidence on the basis of which judgment was pronounced or recording of such evidence without cancelling the jurisdiction should be treated as illegal and judgment based upon such illegal evidence must be held to be illegal and the trial itself is vitiated.

6. Section 60 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act says :

"no Court shall take cognizance of any case or suit which is cognizable under the Act by a bench of the Gram Cutcherry unless an order to the contrary has been passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate or the Munsif concerned under the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force. "

This shows that the court cannot take cognizance of any offence triable by Gram cutcherry unless he cancel the jurisdiction of the Gram Cutcherry in respect of the offence which is exclusively triable by a Bench of Gram Cutcherry. In this case, admittedly, both the offences charged are exclusively triable by a bench of gram Cutcherry. Admittedly, cognizence was taken without cancelling the jurisdiction of the Gram Cutcherry. Therefore, sabsequent trial held without cancelling the jurisdiction of the Gram Cutcherry is contrary to the provisions and in fact has vitiated the trial of the petitioner. Only after cancellation of the jurisdiction of the Gram Cutcherry, cognizance can be taken which only can confer jurisdiction on any regular court. If the jurisdiction of Gram Cutcherry is not cancelled the regular court cannot take cognizance of the offence according to the mandate of the section quoted above. Therefore, logically conclusion follows that the trial held without cancellati