V. Bhardwaj, J.

[1] The petitioners, Tej Bahadur Singh, Jang Bahadur Singh and Raj Narain Singh, were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506, Penal Code, by Opposite Party No. 3, the Panchayati Adalat of Sarai Haidar Shah, pergana Amethi, district Sultanpur, on a complaint made before the Panchayati Adalat by Data Din Dhobi opposite party No. 1 and sentenced to fines of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 10/- each for the two offences respectively. After the conviction by the Panchayati Adalat, the petitioners moved a revision before opposite party No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Amethi but that revision was dismissed. The petitioners, consequently, moved this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of their conviction.

[2] The first point, that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the provisions relating to trial of criminal cases by a Panchayati Adalat under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, are ultra vires of the legislature inasmuch as the U. P. Legislature had no power to legislate on this subject. Learned counsel referred to the preamble of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act which is as follows :

"Preamble : Whereas it is expedient to establish and develop Local Self Government in rural areas of the United Provinces and to make better provisions for village administration and development; it is hereby enacted as follows :"

It was urged that, from this preamble, it is clear that, when enacting this statute, the U. P. Legislature purported to act under item 13 of List II of Schedule VII of the Government of India Act, 1935.

Item 13 relates to "local government, that is to say, the constitution and power of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration."

His contention was that, under this item, the U. P. Legislature had no power to enact provisions, constituting Panchayati Adalats, granting them powers to try criminal offences, laying down the procedure to be followed by them in trying criminal cases and regulating the rule of evidence applicable to such trials. There is no doubt that this part of the enactment is beyond the scope of item 13 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935. It may, however, be noticed that, under items Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 15 of List III, the Provincial Legislatures and the Central Legislature had concurrent powers of legislation on subjects of criminal law, criminal procedure, evidence and Constitution and Jurisdiction of Court's.

The legislatures, when enacting a particular statute, do not, in that statute itself, lay down provisions indicating what power of legislation is being exercised in enacting that statute. It is from the provisions of the statute itself and by reference to the legislative power granted to the legislatures that it is to be inferred what particular power is exercised in enacting a particular provision of the statute.

The constitution of Panchayati Adalats and the powers to be exercised by them in respect of criminal cases were within concurrent legislative powers of the Provincial and Central Governments under the Government of India Act, 1935, according to item No. 15 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of that Act. The power to legislate on criminal law, criminal procedure and evidence was also exercisable concurrently by the Provincial Legislatures and the Central Legislature under items Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of List III of Schedule VII mentioned above. It must, therefore, be presumed that, in enacting provisions constituting Panchayati Adalats, defining their powers, laying down the procedure to be followed by them and regulating the rules of evidence in those courts, the U. P. Legislature purported to act under the relevant items of List III of Schedule VII of the Government of India Act, 1935.

The mere fact that the preamble did not mention tha