A Panchayat cannot convict an accused person without a clear and voluntary confession of guilt and without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 120 of the Panchayat Rules.

( 1 ) IF there ever was a case in which the fundamental principles of our criminal jurisprudence have been violated to the prejudice of the citizen, this is the one.

( 2 ) SEVEN residents of village Shekhal, Pargana Nawar, Tehsil Rohroo, made a report to the Sarpanch, Naya Panch Tikhar, in which it was stated that Nand Ram son of Gurdas Lad stopped the passage, at a place known as Bundar Raj, of the cattle and numerous passers by in Chak Shekhal by constructing a wall. The said Nand Ram had no right outside the area owned by him During the rainy season, there was no other path except this one which was being used for generations. It was prayed that Nand Ram be stopped pending the decision on the grevance of the said villagers. This report is dated 18th July. 1967. Annexure f shows the proceedings taken by the Panchay at on the basis of this report. Curiously enough, the certified copy of these proceedings does not bear any date. It would be helpful to reproduce in verbatim the three questions and answers which constituted the entire trial before the Panchayat :-

"question.-SARVSHRI Homa Nand and Kondu and other residents have reported against you that you had constructed a wall at a place known as Bundar Raj within Chak Shekhal and thereby stopped the passage of men and cattle Answer.-Yes, I have constructed a wall and stopped the passage since it passed through the field owned by me. Question -Whether the first party carried the dead bodies through this path for cremation and by the construction of wall their being so carried, had been stopped and has been rendered dangerous ? Answer -I have recently constructed a Dogri there. Opposite to the Dogri, the residents of village Shekhal had their cremation ground. I would not permit them to cremate the dead bodies there. Question.- Do you plead guilty to the offence ? Answer.-Yes, I admit the guilt for the reasons that damage is caused to the field owned by me by the passage, besides the cattle of all the residents of the village caused damage to my field. " On the basis of the answers given by Nand Ram, the Panchayat passed the following order :- "cognizance of the afforesaid case was taken by me. Shri Kewal Ram, Sarpanch and Shri Amar Prakash, Ranch and Shri Sharma Nand, Panch and Shri Sonak Ram, Panch. The facts of the case are follows :- 1. That Huma Nand and others had reported that Nand Ram accused had by constructing a wall stopped a thoroughfare for men and cattle at Bandar Raj in Chak Shekhat through which besides the residents of village Shekhal the residents of village Narain had the right of passage. 2 Nand Ram accused was apprised about the report, who states that he had actually stopped the thoroughfare known as Bandar Raj by constructing a wall and thereby the passing of men and cattle has stopped. The residents of village Shekhal carried the dead persons for cremation by this place. Since he had constructed a Dogri there and the cremation place is opposite to it, therefore he would not allow the dead bodies to be carried or be cremated there. 3, That the offence against the accused under section 283 Indian Penal Code stood proved before we Panches and therefore without going into the depth and facts of the case, we sentence the accused. Nand Ram to pay a fine of Rs. 80. 00 for an offence proved under section 283 I. P. C. The order announced and the file be consigned after compliance. Dated 25th of July 1907. P. S. The accused is further ordered and directed that he should open the path within a month "this order was made on the 25th July, 1907.

( 3 ) THE petitioner took the matter on revision to the Sub Divisional judge exercising the powers of a Magistrate who dealt with the revision under section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1952 (Act 6 of 1953) (hereafter called the Act ). The order made by the learned Sub-Divisional Judge also deserves to be reproduced in exten so: -

"the parties were present. The petitioner was duly defended by