Raghubar Dayal, J.

[1] This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. The two applicants were convicted by the Panchayati Adalat of village Anua of offences under Sections 426 and 323, I.P.C. Their revision against that order was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as he did not find that any miscarriage of justice had taken place.

[2] It appears that the bench of the Panchayati Adalat which decided this case consisted of seven panches, including Naraindhar, the President of the Adalat. It is contended for the applicants that Section 49, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, authorises the Sarpanch to form a Bench of five panches from the panel for the trial of every case, and as this Bench consisted of more than five panches, it was not properly constituted and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to decide this case.

[3] It was also contended that the Panches included only one Panch from village Khem Patti, in which village both the complainant and the accused resided, while it should have included two panches from this village in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act.

[4] I am of opinion that this case should be decided by a larger Bench so that it be authoritatively laid down as to in what circumstances this court should exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution and to what extent the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 49 of the Act affects the jurisdiction of the Bench to try the case. The questions are of general importance in view of the large number of cases decided- by Panchayati Adalats, whose Panches have not had much experience of the technicalities of law and have not the benefit of the help of lawyers. I, therefore, order that the case be laid before a larger Bench.

OPINION OF FULL BENCH

Malik, C.J.

[5] In this case the decision of the Panchayati Adalat was attacked on two grounds, firstly that the decision was given by as many as six Panches, and secondly that there was only one Panch from the Gaon Sabha Khama Patti in which both the complainant and the accused reside. The first point has not been made out and it need not, therefore, be considered. As regards the second point, I have already expressed my opinion in -- 'Bhagirthi v. State', (S) AIR 1955 All 113 (A) which was put up along with it at the time of hearing.

[6] The learned single Judge has also asked for a decision of the question, in what circumstances a High Court should exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. I have already indicated my views in (S) AIR 1955 All 113 (A) and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in -- 'Waryam Singh v. Amarnath', AIR 1954 SC 215 (B), and in -- 'T. O. Baaappa v. T. Nagappa', AIR 1954 SC 440 (C), it is not necessary for me to say anything more.

[7] I agree that this writ application should be dismissed. B. MUKERJI J.:

7a. I agree and have nothing to add.

Desai J.

[8] This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution for the quashing of the applicants' conviction under Sections 323 and 426, I.P.C. toy a panchayati adalat.

The applicants were prosecuted by Baij Nath: before the panchayati adalat for the offences of Sections 426 and 323, I.P.C. The Sarpanch of the panchayati adalat constituted a Bench to try the case. While the case was pending there, the applicants applied to 'the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, presumably under Section 85, Panehayat Raj Act, for cancellation of the jurisdiction of the panchayati adalat over the case. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate stayed further proceedings before the Bench during the pendency of the application. Subsequently the application was rejected and the proceedings were resumed by the Bench.

The applicants did not appear before it on resumption of the proceedings and the Bench acting ex-parte against them convicted them. The applicants went up in revision against the. order of the panchayati adalat under Section 85 of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate finding that no