SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(All) 158

BIND BASNI PRASAD
BHAGWANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. THROUGH GANGA RAM – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BABU RAM AVASTHI, CHATURBHUJ SAHAI

BIND BASNI PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition in revision by four persons who were convicted by a Bench of Magistrates of muzaffarnagar under Sections 323 and 427, Penal Code, and Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction under Section 323, Penal Code, and section 24, Cattle Trespass Act, but set aside the conviction under Section 427, Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE only point argued on behalf of the applicants is that the case was cognizable by a pan-chayati Adalat and the Bench of the learned Magistrates had no jurisdiction to take cognizance " of the complaint. Sections 52 and 55, U. P. Pan-chayat Raj Act, 1947, have been relied upon. A perusal of Section 52 (1) (a) will show that while an offence under Section 426 is cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat that under Section 427 is not so cognizable. The difference between Sections 426 and 427, Penal Code, is that the latter section applies where the damage caused by the mischief amounts to RS. 50 or upwards. A conviction under Section 426 is made when the damage caused by mischief is less than us. 50. Now in the present case the complainant had alleged that the loss caused to his crop amount




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top