Assa Singh vs The State of Punjab

H.R. Khanna, J.—Asa Singh, his wife Harnam Kaur and daughter-in-law Kako have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Gram Panchayat of village Badechhan Kalan, (district Ambala, dated the 24th July, 1962, and that of Magistrate 1st Class, Rupar, dated the 19th August, 1963.

The brief facts of the case are that the three Petitioners were tried by the Gram Panchayat of Badechhan Kalan for offences under Sections 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with an assault on Shrimati Jito on 28th April, 1962. The Gram Panchayat convicted the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 20. On revision filed by the Petitioners the learned Magistrate held that the Gram Panchayat had no power to try the Petitioners in a case u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He, accordingly, set aside the conviction of the Petitioners for the offence u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the Petitioners for the offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code was maintained, but the sentence of each of them was reduced from a fine of Rs. 20 to Rs. 5.

At the hearing of the petition Mr. Wasu on behalf of the Petitioners has argued that as one of the offences, for which the Petitioners were tried, was u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code, the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to hold the trial and as such the conviction of the Petitioners even for the offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. In my opinion there is considerable force in the above contention. Schedule I-A appended to the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (Punjab Act No. IV of 1953), contains a list of offences which are cognizable by a Gram Panchayat. Although Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is one of the offences specified in that list, Section 504 of the Penal Code finds no mention therein. It is thus plain that the Gram Panchayat could not try the Petitioners for an offence u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code. As the case against the Petitioners comprised offences both under Sections 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and as the case for one of the offences was beyond the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, it would follow that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to try the case. It also is not open, for upholding the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code, to look upon the trial as if it consisted of two trials, one for the offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the other for the offence u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code. There was one indivisible trial and it cannot be held that the trial was partly valid and partly without jurisdiction. The infirmity arising from want of jurisdiction in the Panchayat would vitiate the trial as a whole and it is not permissible to hold that though the trial as a whole was without jurisdiction, the conviction for one of the offences at such a trial is legal. I may in this connection refer to a case practically on all fours which has been decided by a Division Bench of Patna High Court and is reported in Harbans Singh and Others Vs. Sita Devi and Others, The relevant head-note of that case, which is based upon the observations in the body of the judgment, reads as under:

A Gram Cutcherry has no concurrent jurisdiction with a criminal Court in respect of an offence u/s 456, Indian Penal Code, in view of Section 62 of the Act.

Where, therefore, a complaint disclosing offences under Sections 323 and 456, Indian Penal Code, was filed before a Sub-Divisional Officer, who transferred it to a Gram Cutcherry for trial and the latter convicted the accused u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, only.

Held, that the offence u/s 456, Indian Penal Code, not being triable by the Gram Cutcherry "the order of transfer of case to the Gram Cutcherry for taking cognizance and the consequent trial and conviction of the accused u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, were illegal and must be quashed."

I would, accordingly, accept the petition, quash the order dated the 24th July, 1962, passed by the Gram Panchayat and the one dated the 19th August, 1963 passed by the Magistrate 1st Class, Rupar. Fine, if paid should be refunded.