( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution and alternatively under Section 561a, criminal P. 0. against an order of the Panchayti Adalat, Kunda, district Partabgarh. The applicant pambhi has been convicted of offences under Sections 323 and 504, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Es. 35 in respect of the first charge and Rs. 20 in respect of the second, it being provided that if the fine was realized, Rs. 15 thereof would be given to the complainant as compensation. Pambhis revision under Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act to the Court of the Sub divisional Magistrate, Kunda, failed and he now invokes the aid of this Court under the provisions referred to above.

( 2 ) SECTION 85, Panchayat Raj Act, confers the power of revision on Sub-Divisional Magistrates and Munsifs over the orders or decrees of the Panchayati Adalat and provides that decrees or orders passed by the Panchayati Adalat in any suit case or proceeding under the Act "shall be final and shall not be open to appeal or revision in any Court. " Article 227 of the Constitution which is called in aid on behalf of the applicant confers upon every High Court the powers of superintendence over all Courts and tribunals through, out the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. According to the decision in Sukhdeo Baiswar v. Brij Bhushan Misra, A. I. R. (38) 1951 ALL. 667, this power of superintendence is substantially the same which this court had upto the passing of the Government of India Act of 1935. It includes powers of a judicial as well as of an administrative nature but as pointed out in Jhakri Kewat v. Ram Naresh sahi, A. I. R. (22) 3935 ALL. 514, such power should be exercised only in exceptional cases. The decision of 1935 is of importance because the facts involved therein were very similar inasmuch as Sections 253 and 254. Agra Tenancy Act, by which the suit was governed expressly excluded the revisional powers of the High Court. The following remarks of Kendal J. are apposite : "leaving aside for the time being the question of whether the present matter is one which could be covered by the revisional powers of the High Court provided for in Section 115, Civil P. C. , I think it is necessary to point out that although the High Court may have powers of a judicial as well as of an administrative nature under Section 107, Government of India Act, it will only exercise those powers in the most exceptional cases. It Mr. Agarwalas argument ware pressed to its logical conclusion, it would follow that the High Court would be competent to ignore the provisions of Sections 253 and 264, Agra Tenancy Act, and to deal with every application presented to it in a matter relating to the Revenue Courts as if it were one under Section 115, civil P. C. " reference may be made in this connection to the observation of Sir George Rankin C. J. in, manmatha Nath v Emperor, 60 Cal 618 in a case under Section 107, Government of India Act, 1915: "the general superintendence which this Court has over all jurisdictions subject to appeal, is a duty to keep them within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and they do it in a legal manner. It does not involve responsibility for the correctness of their decisions either in fact or law. " a further observation in the course of his judgment may also be quoted with advantage : "it is practicable that the High Court should see that no man is convicted without a legal reason. Indeed, it is idle to give a remedy for irregularity in procedure if remedy is to be refused, where, after a proper trial, the final order of the inferior Court is without any legal foundation. It is not practicable that this Court should retry all cases of the lower Courts, and that it should do so upon no settled principle but in cases arbitrarily and sporadically chosen is highly anomalous and undesirable. The power of superintendence is a power of a known and well recognized characte