MALIK, CJ.:-

I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my brother Desai. I agree with him that the Panchayati Adalat is not bound by the provisions of the Criminal P.C. and if for the three offences it did not pass separate sentences, it cannot be said that the sentence is illegal provided the sentence passed by it is within its competence.

2. As regards the second contention that the bench was not constituted in accordance with the provisions of S.49(2), Panchayat Raj Act, two points were raised before us: firstly, that the decision was given by as many as seven panches and, secondly, that there was only one panch from village Hajiganj to which the complainant and the accused belonged while there should have been two.

3. As regards the first point, we gave the appellant an opportunity to establish that the bench consisted of more than five panches or that more than five panches had taken part in the proceedings or pronounced the judgment. Learned counsel admitted that he had no instructions on the point and was not able to substantiate the same. The affidavit in support of the allegation has not been properly sworn and cannot, therefore, be relied upon.

4. Coming to the second point, sub-s. (2) of S.49, U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (26 of 1947) is as follows:

"Every such Bench shall includes one Panch who resides in the area of the Gaon Sabha in which the plaintiff of a suit or proceeding or the complainant of a case resides and likewise one Panch residing in the area of the Gaon Sabha in which the defendant or the accused resides and three Panches residing in the area of the Gaon Sabha in which neither party resides; .................."

The sub-section clearly provides for a case where the complainant is a resident within the area of one Gaon Sabha and the accused is a resident within the area of another Gaon Sabha and in such a case one Panch is to be from the area of the Gaon Sabha of the complainant and one from the area of the Gaon Sabha of the accused and three Panches were to be from the area of the Gaon Sabha in which neither party resides. The legislature does not seem to have made any provision for a case where both the complainant as also the accused come from the same area of the Gaon Sabha.

5. The other point to be borne in mind is that in a case there may be more than one complainant and more than one accused who may all be residents of areas under different Gaon Sabhas. In such a case it will be difficult to appoint a bench in accordance with the provisions of sub-s. (2) of S.49.

6. The third important factor to be borne in mind is that the quorum is of three Panches and none of the three Panches taking part in the trial and forming the quorum may be from the area of the Gaon Sabha of the accused or the complainant.

7. Under sub-s. (2) of S.49 it will be possible only in a limited number of cases for the Sarpanch to constitute a Bench. It was suggested that whenever the Sarpanch finds any such difficulty he can always refer the matter to the prescribed authority which in such a case will not be bound by the provisions of sub-s. (2) of S.49 in making the nomination.

8. Sub-section (4) of S.49 provides that

"Notwithstanding contained in this section the State Government may by rules prescribe the constitution of special Benches for determining any dispute arising between any parties or Gaon Sabhas of different circles or for any other purpose."

Rules 84 (a) and (b) are the rules framed in this connection. Rule 84 (b) is as follows:

"If in a suit, case or proceeding the Sarpanch of a Panchayati Adalat or his near relation, employer, and employee or partner in the business of his, is a party or in which any of them may be personally interested, or the Sarpanch finds any difficulty to form a bench according to S.49 of the Act the Sarpanch, instead of forming a bench under the said section shall immediately after the institution of the suit, case or proceeding, as the case may be, submit the papers to the prescribed