Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sapru and Agarwala, JJ.
MOTILAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE THROUGH, SAGARWATI - Respondents
Criminal Misc. 246 Of 1951
Decided On : 12/19/1951
PANCHAYATI ADALAT - JUDICIAL ORDER - REVISION - POWER OF HIGH COURT - U.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1947 - SECTION 85(5) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLES 226 AND 227 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - INTERESTED PERSON ACTING AS JUDGE - PANCH APPEARING AS WITNESS AND PARTICIPATING IN DECISION - INVALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed before the Panchayati Adalat alleging theft of a cow. The accused denied the allegation. Two witnesses were examined for the complainant and one for the accused. One of the Panches, Nathu Ram Yadav, admitted that a receipt was written after the cow had been sold. He was also examined as a witness by the Panchayati Adalat and corroborated the statement of the complainant. The accused was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 45/-. In revision, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that Chattrasal, another Panch who was alleged to have sat on the bench and appeared as a prosecution witness, was not a member of the Bench that decided the case. The accused then filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
1. Section 85(5) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which bars revision from the decision of a Panchayati Adalat, does not debar the High Court from interfering with the order of the Panchayati Adalat in appropriate cases, as the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and no law which is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution can be valid except in so far as the Constitution itself provides for the appropriate authority to make such law. 2. The power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not confined to the specific powers given under Clause (2) of the Article, but also includes the general power of superintendence referred to in Clause (1) of the Article, which empowers the High Court to exercise superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 3. The power of superintendence under Article 227 includes the power of judicial interference in matters of jurisdiction and cases involving errors apparent on the face of the record, which may arise from some defect or informality in the proceedings. 4. The power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 is wider than the power of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it is not limited to cases where a subordinate court declines to hear or determine a suit or application within its jurisdiction. 5. The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not merely an administrative power, but also includes a limited judicial power to see whether a court or tribunal has acted within its bounds. 6. The principle of natural justice requires that a person must not be a judge in his own cause and must not be an accuser and a judge. 7. The participation of a person who has an interest in a case which a judicial or quasi-judicial body is called upon to decide vitiates a trial according to British concepts of justice. 8. The principle of natural justice applies to Panchayati Adalats in the same way as it applies to other judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals or courts.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has the power to interfere with the judicial order of a Panchayati Adalat under Article 227 of the Constitution, despite the bar on revision under Section 85(5) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947? 2. Whether the power of superintendence under Article 227 is limited to administrative powers or includes a limited judicial power? 3. Whether the principle of natural justice, which prohibits a person from being a judge in his own cause, applies to Panchayati Adalats?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has the power to interfere with the judicial order of a Panchayati Adalat under Article 227 of the Constitution, despite the bar on revision under Section 85(5) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, as the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and no law which is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution can be valid except in so far as the Constitution itself provides for the appropriate authority to make such law. 2. The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not limited to administrative powers but also includes a limited judicial power to see whether a court or tribunal has acted within its bounds. 3. The principle of natural justice, which prohibits a person from being a judge in his own cause, applies to Panchayati Adalats in the same way as it applies to other judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals or courts.
Final Decision: The order of the Panchayati Adalat was set aside, and no further proceedings were to be taken in the case, considering the petty nature of the matter and the inconvenience and expenses incurred by the accused.
AGARWALA, J.
( 1 ) SRIMATI Bari Dulaiya filed a complaint before the Panchayati Adalat of Rupadhamna alleging that Moti Lal applicant stole away a cow from her house after having sold the same to her.
( 2 ) THE applicants defence was that he did not steal the cow and was not guilty of theft.
( 3 ) THE complainant examined two witnesses, Noni Dulaiya, an old lady living in the neighbourhood, and one Chattrasal, a person whose name appeared in the panel of Panches of panchayati Adalat, Rupadhamna. The applicant examined one Ram Sarup and Rajpat. Rajpat admitted that a receipt was written after the cow had been sold. The receipt was scribed by one sri Nathu Ram Yadav, one of the Panches constituting the Bench of the Panchayati Adalat trying the case. He was also examined by the Panchayati Adalat. He corroborated the statement of the complainant. The Panches including the witness Sri Nathu Ram Yadav, convicted the applicant under Section 379, I. P. C. and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 45/ -. In their judgment the Panches relied not only upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses, but also upon the statement of sri Nathu Ram Yadav Panch.
( 4 ) AGAINST this order the applicant filed an application in revision in the court of the sub-Divisional Magistrate. Before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate it was urged that Sri Chattrasal could not legally sit as a Panch and decide the case when he was a prosecution witness. The sub-Divisional Magistrate observed that Chattrasal was not a member of the Bench which decided the case. He, therefore, dismissed the revision.
( 5 ) THE applicant has now applied to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. He has filed an affidavit stating that by a mistake of the counsel, instead of Nathu Ram Yadav, the name of chattrasal was mentioned before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as one of the Panches who decided the case and who was also a witness in the case. As from the judgment of the Panchayati adalat itself, it appears that Nathu Ram Yadav was both a witness and a Panch who decided the case, we allowed the applicant to raise this point for the first time in this Court. The question raised before us is whether under the Panchayat Raj Act a person can both be a witness and a judge in deciding the case and whether the decision of the Panchayati Adalat is not void on that ground.
( 6 ) ON behalf of the opposite party three contentions have been raised. First, it has been urged that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with a judicial order of a subordinate tribunal under article 227. The contention is that the High Court has only administrative power of superintendence under Article 227. Secondly, it is urged that even if this Court has power of judicial superintendence, that power is barred by virtue of Section 85 (5) of the Panchayat Raj act. Thirdly, it is contended that the Panchayat Raj Act provides its own special procedure under which it is permissible for a Panch to be both a witness and a judge.
( 7 ) SO far as the second contention is concerned, it can be disposed of very easily.
( 8 ) CLAUSES (1) to (4) of Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act lay down circumstances in which a sub-Divisional Magistrate, in the case of a criminal case, a Munsif, in the case of a civil case, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, in the case of a revenue matter, may interfere with the proceedings or order or decree of the Panchayati Adalat. Clause (5) of that section provides: "except as aforesaid, a decree or order passed by a Panchayati Adalat in any suit, case or proceeding under this Act shall be final and shall not be open to appeal or revision in any court. " this provision bars an appeal or revision from the decision of a Panchayati Adalat except as is provided in the Act itself. It is, therefore, effective to bar a revision under Section 435, Criminal p. C. But is it effective against the provisions of the Constitution?
( 9 ) ASSUMING that either under Article 227 or under Article 226 of the Constitutio
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
