TYAGI, J.— Baboolal and ten other persons have challenged their conviction under secs.352, 504, 447 and 426 I. P. C. ordered by the Nyaya Panchayat, Samore by filing this writ application under Art.226 of the Constitution inter alia, on the ground that the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to try the petitioners and, therefore, their conviction is bad.

2. Respondent No. 3 Raghveer Singh was allotted land bearing Khasra No. 185/1.2 under the Rajasthan Land Allotment Rules and that land was cultivated by him. It is alleged that the petitioners did not like this allotment. On 13th of August, 1966, when the complainant-respondent No. 3 went to watch his crop on the field, he found all the eleven accused petitioners grazing their cattle near his field. They were all armed with lathis. When the complainant-respondent reached his field he was informed by the accused petitioners that they would not permit him to cultivate the land. It is said that the petitioners then all started demolishing the water channel through which the complainants field was irrigated. It is further alleged that when the complainant requested the petitioners not to behave in that manner, four out of the eleven petitioners, namely, Sundra, Udaisingh, Kishanlal and Chandha proceeded to beat the complainant with lathis. Apprehending a danger to his life, the complainant somehow made good his escape from that place and then filed a complaint before the Nyaya Panchayat alleging that the petitioners had committed offences under secs.352, 447, 436 and 504 Indian Penal Code. It was also mentioned in the complaint that the accused petitioners caused damage to the complainants crop to the extent of Rs. 350/-.

3. After the trial by the Nyaya Panchayat, Samore, all the eleven petitioners were found guilty of offences under secs. 352, 504, 447 and 436 Indian Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40/-. The Nyaya Panchayat further observed in its judgment that since the complainant has succeeded in proving that he had suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 75/- at the hands of the accused petitioners, he may be paid Rs. 75/- from the fine money realised from the petitioners. The petitioners preferred a revision application against the order of the Nyaya Panchayat in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 1, Dholpur who, after hearing the parties, upheld the judgment of the Nyaya Panchayat It is against these two judgments that the present writ application has been filed by the petitioners. The main ground of challenge is that the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to try the case as the complaint reveals the commission of an offence under sec. 427 Indian Penal Code which is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.

4. In the complaint it was mentioned by the complainant in para No. 6 that he had suffered a damage of Rs. 250/- because the petitioners allowed the crop of the complainant to be destroyed by their cattle. The finding recorded by the Nyaya Panchayat in its judgment dated 27th of June, 1967, shows that the damage caused to the complainant was not to the extent of Rs. 250/- but the complainant suffered a damage of Rs. 75/- only. The Nyaya Panchayat, therefore, ordered that out of the fine money realised from the petitioners, the complainant may be paid Rs. 75/-.

5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that from the complaint as well as from the decision given by the Nyaya Panchayat it is clear that the offence of the petitioners fell under sec. 427 Indian Penal Code. It was only to bring the matter under its jurisdiction that the Nyaya Panchayat after having recorded the finding that the complainant had suffered damages of Rs. 75/- convicted the petitioners under sec. 426 Indian Penal Code.

6. Sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, lays down the extent of the criminal jurisdiction of a Nyaya Panchayat and specifies that a Panchayat shall take cognizance of any offence and abetment of or attempt to commit any offence sp