An order under Section 53 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is a 'criminal case' for the purposes of revision under Section 89, invoking broader interpretations of 'case' in judicial proceedings.

1. This writ petition has come up before us upon a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court.

2. Under S.53 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), each of the petitioners was ordered by the Nyaya Panchavat of village Khewali, district Varanasi, to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50 with one surety of like amount for keeping the peace for a period of fifteen days. The order of the Nyaya Panchayat provided that in case of default in executing the required bond a penalty of Rs. 5 per day shall be imposed on each defaulting petitioner. Against that order the petitioners filed an application in revision under S.89 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Varanasi (S) who dismissed It on the ground that no revision lay. The view that the Magistrate took was that an order under S.53 is not an order in a "criminal case" as defined in the Act and is, accordingly, not revisable under S.89. In taking this view he followed the decision of Mehrotra, J. in Girwar Singh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Writ No. 753 of 1954 decided on March 11, 1955 (All). By means of this petition the petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the Nyaya Panchayat and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The learned single Judge before whom the writ petition originally came up for hearing found some difficulty in accepting the opinion expressed by Mehrotra, J. in the above decision, and that led to the reference.

3. The relevant portion of S.89 of the Act runs as follows:
"S.89 (1) - A Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Munsif or Sub-Divisional Officer, according as it is a criminal, civil or revenue case, may either on his own motion or on the application of any party made within 60 days from the date of the order complained of or where personal service of summons had not been effected on the applicant from the date of the knowledge of the order call for the record of any case which has been decided by a Nyaya Panchayat and if it appears to him that injustice or material irregularity has occurred, he may make such order in the case as he thinks fit
(2) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(3) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(4) Except as aforesaid, a decree or order passed by a Nyaya Panchayat in any civil, criminal or revenue case shall not be open to appeal or revision in any Court."

4. The expressions "criminal case", "civil case" and "revenue case" have all been defined in S.2 of the Act. According to the definition, "Criminal case" means a criminal proceeding in respect of an offence triable by a Nyaya Panchayat. Certainly, a proceeding under S.53 cannot be said to be a proceeding in respect of an offence triable by a Nyaya Panchavat, and if the revisional power of Sub-Divisional Magistrate is regarded as confined to a criminal case as defined in the Act the conclusion that an order under S.53 is not revisable is correct. The question, however, is whether the revisional power can properly be regarded as so confined.

5. Now, "case" is an expression of very wide import. When used in relation to an authority performing judicial function or exercising judicial power, it includes every matter which furnishes occasion for the performance of that function and every subject in respect of which that power is exercised. There is nothing to indicate that the expression "case" has been given a restricted meaning in the Act. No doubt, sub-section (1) of S.49 which provides for the formation of Benches speaks of "cases and inquiries" coming up before the Nyava Panchayat, and it may thus create the impression that the Act contemplates a distinction between