Back
1964 Supreme(HP) 14
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
OM PARKASH
DHANI RAM - Appellant
Versus
SUB-DIVISIONAL - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petn. No. 23 of 1963
Decided On : 09/10/1964
Sita Ram, for Petitioners K.C. Pandit Govt. Advocate, (for No. 1) and Mohan Lal (for Nos. 2 to 5), for Respondents.
The order of a Nyaya Panchayat is not final and is subject to judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution, despite the provisions of Section 94 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 226 AND 227 - WRIT JURISDICTION - SCOPE - ORDER OF NYAYA PANCHAYAT - WHETHER FINAL - WHETHER SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW - HIMACHAL PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1968 - SECTIONS 94, 92, 93, 111, 37A, 55A - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 228 - INTERPRETATION - JUDICIAL PROCEEDING - DEFINITION - DEMARCATION OF LAND - WHETHER JUDICIAL PROCEEDING - INSULT OR INTERRUPTION TO PUBLIC SERVANT - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 228 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted and sentenced under Section 228 IPC by Bench No. 3 of the Nyaya Panchayat for allegedly interrupting the proceedings of Bench No. 1 and insulting its members during the demarcation of land. The petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence on various grounds, including the validity of the constitution of Bench No. 3, the applicability of Section 228 IPC to the demarcation proceeding, and the non-compliance with the conditions precedent under Section 37A of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act.
Finding of the Court:
1. The order of a Nyaya Panchayat is not final and is subject to judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution, despite the provisions of Section 94 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act. 2. Bench No. 3 was not validly constituted as the Sarpanch, who constituted the Bench, was a party to the case and personally interested in it, in violation of Rule 111 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules. 3. The demarcation proceeding conducted by Bench No. 1 was not a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 228 IPC, as it did not relate to the administration of justice or the determination of any jural relation. 4. The provisions of Section 37A and 55A of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, which require an application for compromise or composition of a criminal case to be filed before the Gram Panchayat, do not apply to a case under Section 228 IPC, which is not compoundable without the permission of the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of a Nyaya Panchayat is final and not subject to judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Whether Bench No. 3 was validly constituted in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules. 3. Whether the demarcation proceeding conducted by Bench No. 1 was a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 228 IPC. 4. Whether the provisions of Section 37A and 55A of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act apply to a case under Section 228 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 94 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, which declare the order of a Nyaya Panchayat to be final, do not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to question such an order. 2. Rule 111 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules debars the Sarpanch from constituting a Bench in certain contingencies, including when the Sarpanch is a party to the case or personally interested in it. 3. A proceeding is judicial if its object is to determine jural relations between persons or groups of persons, or between them and the community generally. The demarcation proceeding conducted by Bench No. 1 did not have such an object and was therefore not a judicial proceeding. 4. The provisions of Section 37A and 55A of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, which require an application for compromise or composition of a criminal case to be filed before the Gram Panchayat, do not apply to a case under Section 228 IPC, which is not compoundable without the permission of the Court.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the proceedings held by Bench No. 3, and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 228 IPC, were quashed.
1. The facts, giving rise to this petition, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are as under:
2. Shri Het Ram, respondent No. 5, Sarpanch, Nyaya Panchayat, Himri, Sub-Tehsil Kotkhai and other Panches, constituting Bench No. 1 of the Nyaya Panchayat, had gone to village Rewag for demarcating the land of Shri Moti Ram. The land of the petitioners adjoined the land of Shri Moti Ram. The petitioners were alleged to have interrupted the proceedings, relating to the demarcation of land and also to have insulted the members of Bench No. 1. Shri Het Ram, Sarpanch, filed a complaint under S. 228 I.P.C., against the petitioners, in the Nyaya Panchayat, about the alleged contempt. Me also issued notices to the petitioners and constituted Bench No. 3, of the Nyaya Panchayat, consisting of respondents Nos. 2 to 4, for the trial of the complaint. The petitioner were proceeded against ex parte as they did not appear despite service of summonses. The complaint was heard in their absence and was decided on the 24th February, 1963. The petitioners were held guilty, under S. 228 I.P.C., by Bench No. 3, and were lined Rs. 10/- each.
3. During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioners had, on the 16th February, 1963, moved the Sub-Divisional Judge, Theog, for quashing the proceedings, initiated on the complaint, or in the alternative, for the transfer of the case to his Court. The Sub-Divisional Judge issued notice to Bench No. 3 and also called for report, for the 7th March, 1963. The complaint was, in the meanwhile, disposed of, by the Bench, on the 24th February, 1963. In view of the disposal of the complaint, the application of the petitioners, filed Before the Sub-Divisional Judge, was rejected as having Become infructuous, on the 18th April, 1963.
4. On the same day, i.e., 18th April, 1963, the petitioners filed a revision-petition, before the Sub-Divisional Judge, Theog, against their conviction and sentence, under S. 228 I.P.C., by Bench No. 3. They challenged their conviction on various grounds. The Sub-Divisional Judge dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the decision of Bench No. 3. The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the orders of Bench No. 3 and the Sub-Divisional Judge.
5. The petitioners allege that the proceedings of Bench No. 3, and the order of conviction, passed by it, were without jurisdiction and Illegal as the Bench was not properly constituted. They, further, allege that Bench No. 3 was barred from entertaining the complaint as the conditions precedent, as provided in S. 37A of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, had not been complied with. The petitioners do not admit that they had caused interruption, in the proceedings of Bench No. 1 or had insulted the members of that Bench. They maintain that even if it be held that they had caused any interruption, their act would not fall within the four corners of S. 228 I.P.C., as Bench No. 1, which was engaged only in defining the limits of land was not sitting in any stage of a Judicial proceeding. The petitioners question the impartiality of Bench No. 1, especially of Shri Het Ram, Sarpanch.
6. The respondents denied the allegations, made by the petitioners, against the impartiality of Bench No. 1. It was, also, denied that Bench No. 3 was not validly constituted or that its proceedings and order were without jurisdiction and Illegal or that it could not entertain the complaint. The respondents pleaded that Bench No. 3 was constituted in accordance with law. It was, further, pleaded that the provisions of S. 37A of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act were not applicable to the case and Bench No. 3 was competent to entertain the complaint, though the conditions laid down, in the aforesaid section, had not been complied with. The respondents maintained that the proceedings relating to the demarcation of boundaries of land, by Bench No. 1, were Judicial proceedings and that th
