Judgment

Narasimham, C J

[1] The three petitioners were tried before the Adalti Panchayat of Amrutmanohi for an offence under Section 323 , I. P. C. and petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20/- and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 to a fine of Rs. 10/- each. They filed a revision petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kendrapara against their conviction and sentence alleging various irregularities in the trial. Bait the Sub-divisional Magistrate declined to interfere.

[2] The Amrutmanohi Adalti Panchayat was constituted under the provisions of the Orissa Grain Panchayats Act 1948 and the procedure to be followed by the Panchayat for the trial of offences is fully described in Chapter VII of that Act and the various rules framed thereunder. An offence under Section 323, I.P.C., is one of the offences cognizable by an Adalti Panchayat under Section 64(1) of the Act. The procedure before the Adalti Panchayat is summary and Section 82 of the Act directs every Adalti Panchayat to dispose of all cases as promptly as possible preferably on the very day on which the accused appears. Section 84 of the Act provides that the decision of the Adalti Panchayat shall be according to Justice, equity and good conscience and that the Panchayat is not bound by laws of evidence or procedure other than those prescribed in the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 94 prohibits a lawyer from appearing before a Panchayat and as the constitutionality of this section is under challenge I may quote it in full.

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, Advocates or legal practitioners shall not be permitted to appear before the said Panchayat."

[3] Rule 200 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Rules says that if the accused does not plead guilty the Panchayat shall hear the complainant if any, and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence. It further says that only a summary of the evidence of each witness will be recorded in the appropriate place in the register of cases. Rule 195 further says that in all criminal cases and civil suits, witnesses shall be examined on oath or solemn affirmation Rule 201 (1) requires the Adalti Panchayat to examine the accused after the evidence has been recorded and then pronounce a Judgment of conviction or acquittal.

[4] Mr. Rath on behalf, of the petitioners challenged their conviction and sentence on the following grounds:

(i) Witnesses were not examined on oath by the Adalti Fanchayat; nor did the Panchayat examine every one of the petitioners before holding them guilty. Hence, according to Mr. Rath, Rules 195 and 201 (1), were contravened;

(ii) In any case, Section 94 of the Act which prohibits an advocate or a legal practitioner from appearing before the Adalti Panchayat is unconstitutional and hence the entire trial is bad.

[5] As regards the first point, I must observe that Mr. Rath has not been able to establish that oath was not, in fact, administered to the witnesses or else that the three petitioners who were accused persons were not examined by the Adalti Panchayat. The petition is supported by an affidavit of an advocate's clerk of Cuttack who has "no personal knowledge as to what happened during the trial before the Panchayat. The petitioners themselves have not cared to swear an affidavit before this Court in support of the allegations made in the petition. Mr. Rath however relied on the copies of the extracts from the register of the Panchayat that were filed before us in which it is not stated that the witnesses were examined on oath. But as Rule 200 does not require the deposition of a witness to be recorded verbatim as in an ordinary trial under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code but permits of the summary of the evidence of the witnesses being recorded, the mere absence in the record of an entry to the effect that oath was administered to a