P. L. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) RAM Prasad, Sudama, Sada Shiv and Sukhdeo were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 823, Penal Code. They were tried by a Panchayati Adalat of Bagehta, Tehsil baberoo, in the district of Banda. The Adalat found them guilty of the offence with which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them. They filed a revision in the Court of the sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baberoo; but the revision was rejected. Now, this application has been filed for the quashing of the conviction and sentence in exercise of this Courts power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) IT is contended on behalf of the applicants that the Panchayati Adalat was not constituted according to law inasmuch as the Sarpanch had not formed a bench of five panches from the panel as required by Section 49, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (No. 26 of 1947) and the case was heard and decided by only three panches. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the sub-Divisional Magistrate, who seems to have confined his attention only to facts.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the complainant it has been argued that this application is in substance an application for the exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, and as such it is not cognizable by a Single Judge. Learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that Article 227 of the Constitution confers jurisdiction upon the High Court to exercise powers of superintendence over the Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction; but while exercising that jurisdiction the Court has to make an order in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) ARTICLE 227 of the Constitution of India lays down that every High Court shall have superintendence over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction; and that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision the high Court may act in the manner specified in the article. In exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227, the High Court cannot exercise the powers exercisable under article 226 ; and, as pointed out by this Court, in Sukhdeo Baiswar v. Brij Bhushan Misra, 1951 all. L. J. 305, the Court can exercise, only in a limited manner, " the power to interfere with judicial orders of subordinate Courts", "to check the assumption, or excess, of jurisdiction or to compel the exercise of jurisdiction wrongfully declined, and not to substitute its own judgment, whether on a question of fact or on a question of law, in place of the subordinate Courts. " The power conferred on this Court under Article 227 is not in any way controlled by the power exercisable by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under the rules of this Court, applications, under Article 226 and those under Article 227 of the Constitution are treated and dealt with differently. There are special rules for the institution and disposal of applications under Article 226, while there are no such rules for applications under Article 227. An application filed in this Court for the exercise of powers under Article 296 is, no doubt, cognizable by a Bench of this Court but an application for the exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 is cognizable by a single Judge, as has been held by a division Bench of this Court in Teja v. Mogla, cri. Misc. case no. 971 of 1951 (ALL. ).

( 5 ) IN my opinion, therefore, as in this case the Court has been called upon to exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, the present application is cognizable by a Single Judge and the objection raised on behalf of the complainant has got no force.

( 6 ) ON the materials placed before me, it is not possible to say whether the Sarpanch had or had not formed a Bench of five panches as required by Section 49 of the Act; but, it, no doubt,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document