Nand Singh vs The Gram Panchayat at village Gurhail

H.R. Khanna, J.—This is a revision filed by Nand Singh who was convicted u/s 228, Indian Penal Code, by Gram Panchayat of village Gurhail, District Jullundur, for contempt of the Panchayat and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. The order was upheld on revision by the learned Magistrate, Jullundur.

The facts giving rise to the present revision are that there was a dispute about some Shisham trees before the above mentioned Gram Panchayat The petitioner claimed those trees to be his own property and alleged that they stood on his own land and not on a public path. The members of the panchayat accordingly went to inspect the spot on 27th August, 1961 and found that the above mentioned trees stood on the land of the petitioner and not on a public path. When the members of the Panchayat were returning after the inspection of the spot, the petitioner started talking to Maluk Singh, Panch, about some other tree regarding which there was a dispute between the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner when talking of that other dispute said to Maluk Singh that the field in which that tree stood measured 17 Karams. Maluk Singh replied that the length of that field was 16 Karams. The petitioner is stated to have then got enraged and told Maluk Singh that he would deal with the members of the Panchayat when they come to take the measurement of that field. Maluk Singh then replied that if the Arbitrator, to whom the dispute had been referred for decision, ordered that measurement to be taken he would definitely come to that field and make the measurement. The petitioner, it is alleged, thereupon abused Maluk Singh and told him that he might as well pull the penis of the petitioner. The petitioner also stepped forward towards Maluk Singh with an intention of assaulting him but he was prevented by the other members of the Panchayat. The members of the Panchayat held that the above conduct of the petitioner was contumacious and he was guilty of contempt.

In revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no case u/s 228 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the petitioner. The section reads as under:-

Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceedings shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

It is not disputed before me that the members of the Panchayat are public servants as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Clause (1) of section 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, expressly makes it clear. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that Maluk Singh cannot be stated to be sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding at the time he is alleged to have been abused by the petitioner. In my opinion, there is force in the above contention. The resume of facts given above makes it clear that Maluk Singh along with the other members of the Panchayat was on the way back from the inspection of the spot when the incident, which is alleged to constitute contempt of Panchayat, took place. The abuse was hurled by the petitioner in connection with another matter which was the subject of a dispute before an arbitrator between the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat. In my opinion, it would be unduly straining the language of section 228, Indian Penal Code, to hold that a Panch is sitting in any Stage of a judicial proceeding when he is returning after the inspection of a spot. The conduct of the petitioner in abusing Maluk Singh is such as must be deprecated but the question before me is whether the case against the petitioner is covered by the provisions of section 228, Indian Penal Code. So far as this matter is concerned, I have come to the conclusion that the case is not covered by that section. I accordingly accept the revision, set aside the orders of the Gram Panchayat and the Court below and acquit the petitioner for the alleged offence u/s 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.