A party cannot be allowed to raise a question of jurisdiction on a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution when no objection on that score had been taken before the tribunal whose order is being challenged.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against a decision, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, setting aside the convictions and sentences under Sections 504 and 506, I. P. C. of the opponents Gumansigh and kaluram and acquitting them of the offences. The opponents were convicted by the Nyaya Panchayat of Makdon on a complaint filed by the petitioner Ambaram under Section 75 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat vidhan, 1949. That section and Section 76 confer jurisdiction on Nyaya Panchayats to try certain offences under the Penal Code and under other Acts, limiting the power of the Nyaya Panchayat in the matter of punishment to a fine not exceeding rs. 100/ -. A Nyaya Panchayat under the Act is not competent to sentence any person convicted for any of the offences specified in Section 75 to imprisonment. A Nyaya Panchayat cannot also try persons mentioned in Section 80 and, under section 83 it cannot entertain any complaint with regard to the commission of an offence after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the commission thereof. Under Section 89 a decision of the Nyaya Panchayat in a criminal case is revisable by a Sessions Judge and the decision of the Sessions Judge is final.

( 2 ) MR. Pande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, on three grounds. First it was said that sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Panchayat Vidhan, which was not reserved for the consideration of the President and which had not leceived his assent, being repugnant to the Code of Criminal Procedure were void under Article 254 of the constitution and that, therefore, the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's complaint. Secondly it was urged that for the same Section 89 of the Act was also repugnant and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition filed by the opponents. Thirdly it was contended that under section 89 it was the Sessions Judge and not an Additional Sessions Judge who was competent to hear and determine a revision petition against a decision of the nyaya Panchayat.

( 3 ) IN my opinion, this petition must be dismissed without considering the validity of the petitioner's contention as regards the jurisdiction or the Nyaya Panchayat to entertain the complaint and of the Additional Sessions Judge to hear the revision petition because of the alleged repugnancy between Sections 75, 76, 77 and 89 of the Panchayat Vidhan ana of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner himself filed a complaint against the opponents before the Nyaya panchayat. When he did that he must be assumed to have accepted the position that the Nyaya Panchayat was legally clothed with the authority to try his complaint. The petitioner who presented the complaint before the Nyaya panchayat under Section 75 could not clearly at the same time say that the provision which conferred jurisdiction on the Nyaya Panchayat being repugnant to the Code of Criminal Procedure is void. On the maxim 'allegans contraria non est audiendus' (a person making contradictory statements is not to be heard), the petitioner cannot now be heard to repudiate the very jurisdiction which he invoked. Again before the Additional sessions Judge the petitioner did not raise the point that as Section 89 of the panchayat Vidhan was repugnant to Section 438, Criminal P. C. , the Sessions judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revisionpetition preferred by the accused persons. At that time it never occurred to the petitioner that the Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction. He took the chance of success before the Sessions Court and it was not until he had failed that he elected to move this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. If the revision petition had been dismissed, we would not have heard anything further about the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat to ente