( 1 ) THIS is a criminal reference by the learned Sessions Judge Bhavnagar for quashing an order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Vallabhipur-Umrala. It relates to the jurisdiction of a Nyaya Panchayat constituted under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958

( 2 ) THE matter arises this way :the complainant one Chhagan Raghav filed a complaint against one Bharwad Pola Ghugha and 2 others on charges of mischief under sec. 426 and criminal trespass under sec. 447 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the offences were alleged to have been committed in the village of Chogath within the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Vallabhipur Umrala. The learned Magistrate having entertained the complaint issued summons to the accused. Thereupon the accused made an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate contending that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Nyaya Panchayat Chogath had the said jurisdiction. The learned Judicial Magistrate upheld the contention advanced by the accused and made an order that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the complaint be returned to the complainant for proper presentation. The learned Magistrate held that the jurisdiction for these offences was vested in the relevant Nyaya Panchayat. Against this order of the learned Judicial Magistrate the complainant made a revision application to the learned Sessions Judge Bhavnagar. The learned Sessions Judge Bhavnagar has made this reference to this Court expressing the view that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous and that the said order be set aside and that the learned Magistrate be directed to take cognizance of the said offences and try the same.

( 3 ) TO decide this reference it is necessary to refer to certain relevant provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 Under sec. 75 there is a list of offences which are made cognizable by Nyaya Panchayats. Section 75 provides as follows:a Nyaya Panchayat shall take cognizance of-and try all or any of the following offences (including the abetment thereof or attempt to commit any such offences) subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 64 (a) Under the Indian Penal Code. x x x x x x

( 4 ) MISCHIEF when the loss or damage caused does not Section. exceed Rs. 20/in value. 426 criminal Trespass. 447.

( 5 ) IN this case the complainant has in his own application stated that the damage that has been caused is to the extent of Rs. 50. 00. Therefore the Nyaya Panchayat under the provisions of sec. 75 of the said Act obviously would be incompetent to try the offence of mischief under sec. 426 where the loss or damage exceeds 20/in value as in this case. Coming to the second charge which is the subject-matter of the complaint viz. sec 447 read with sec. 34 I. P. C. it is true that a criminal trespass under sec. 447 I. P. C. is included in the list of offences under sec. 75 of the Act. At the same time in the instant case the charge is not simply under sec. 447 I. P. C. but it is under section 447 read with sec. 34 I. P. C. which means that the charge involves that there was common intention between all the accused to commit offence of criminal trespass. Now looking to the language of sec. 75 of the Act which has been quoted above what the section says is that the Nyaya Panchayat shall take cognizance of and try all or any of the offences which have been enumerated under the said section including the abetment or the attempt to commit any such offence. Now it cannot be said that a charge of an offence read with section 34 I P C. is a charge either of abetment or attempt to commit the offence. A charge under sec. 447 read with section 34 I. P. C. is not a charge simpliciter under section 447. Neither is it a charge of abetment of the offence nor a charge of attempt to commit any such offence. Under the circumstances if the charge of criminal trespa