Smt. Krishana Devi and others vs Gram Sabha, Lohara

I.S. Tiwana, J.—The question of law of some significance which has come before us on a reference by D. S. Tewatia, J. relates to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate in proceedings under Sections 21/23 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. While making the reference, the learned Judge doubted the correctness of Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohan Singh and Anr. v. Rana Partap A. I. R. 1960 Punj. 160. We mention here at the oustset that during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for neither of the parties assailed the correctness of the said decision and rather were of the categorical opinion that a reference to the same is not even relevant for the decision of this petition We, therefore, do not feel it necessary to examine the correctness of the said judgment.

Briefly the facts giving rise to the above noted question of law arc that Gram Sabha, Lohara, Union Territory, Chandigarh, issued a notice dated June 8, 1968, asking the Petitioners to remove the boundary wall constructed by them around a certain area which resulted in obstruction in a public passage known as Rasta Dhanaswala Dharmnsala''. The Petitioners filed their objections to this notice alleging therein that the notice was not only vague and indefinite, but similar earlier notices issued by the Panchayat had already been met successfully by them and the Panchayat should not harass by them repeatedly issuing such notices. The proceedings which continued to be pending for a considerably long time in one Panchayat or the other on account of transfer orders by the competent authorities, ultimately were transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, under the orders of Sessions Judge presumeably passed by him u/s 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The matter was finally decided by Shri J. P. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide his order dated July 30, 1977, holding that the Gram Sabha could not take any further action against the Petitioners on the basis of the notice dated June 8, 1968.

The Gram Sabha Lohara, preferred a revision petition u/s 397, Criminal Procedure Code, against this order of the Judicial Magistrate dated July 30, 1977. During the course of pendency of the revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, the Gram Sabha probably realising the weakness of their case withdrew the said impugned notice with an undertaking that the Gram Panchayat shall not proceed on this notice and shall issue a fresh notice giving the boundaries of the property if they decided to proceed against the Respondents again. As a result of this undertaking, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petition before him with the observation that the Panchayat shall not proceed to get the obstruction removed on the basis of the impugned notice but it would be open to(sic) to give a fresh notice describing the boundaries of the property and to proceed against the Respondents if it so liked. It is this order of the Additional Sessions Judge which is now challenged before us.

4 The primary, rather the sole contention of Mr, Harbans Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that no such revision petition was competent before the Additional Sessions Judge as according to the learned Counsel, Shri J. P. Gupta, Magistrate, had only decided the proceedings under Sections 21/23 of the Gram Panchayat Act as '' a Panchayat and applicability of Code of Criminal Procedure is such has specifically been exeluded by the provisions of Section 66 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. In a nutshell the learned Counsel submits that when a judicial Magistrate tries or concludes proceedings under the Gram Panchayat Act, the jurisdiction he exereises and the procedure he follows is that laid down under the Gram Panehayat Act and not under the Criminal Procedure Code. If that is the situation, contends the learned Counsel, that no revision u/s 397, Criminal Procedure Code, was competent against the order of the Judicial "Magistrate. He points out that at the most the Chief Judicial Magistrate could cancel or modify the order in exercise of his supervisory jurisdiction u/s 51 of the Gram Panchayat Act.

To us it appears that the argument of the learned Counsel is based on misapprehensions and misreading of the relevant provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure It is beyond dispute that the procedings initiated u/s 21/23 of the Gram Panchayat Act are in the nature of Criminal procedings and the Panchayat, while exercising its jurisidiction under those sections, is a Court The rest of the argument of the learned Counsel that once those proceedings are transferred to the Court of a Judicial Magistrate, the said Judicial Court would be reduced to the status of a Panchayat, is not based on any principle or precedent. The Gram Panchayat and the judicial Court of a Magistrate are two Independent and parallel forums of competent jurisdiction to try and decide those proceedings. This aspect of the matter is more than clear by a reference to Section 51 of the Panchayat Act itself which reads as under:

Supervision of Criminal proceedings by (Chief Judicial Magistrate)

(1) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, if satisfied, that a failure of justice has occurred, may of his own motion or on an application of the party aggrieved, by order in writing after notice to the accused, or the complainant as the case may be, cancel or modify any order In a judicial proceeding made by a Panchayat or direct the retrial of any criminal case by the same or any other Panchayat of competent jurisdiction or by a court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to him.

(2) ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ...

A bare reading of the above noted provision would reveal that a Chief Judicial Magistrate, while cancelling or modifying an order in a judicial proceeding made by a Panchayat, may direct the retrial of the case by the same or the other Panchayat of competent jurisdiction or by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to him. Section 66 of the Gram Panchayat Act excludes the applicability of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the proceedings pending before the Pan-chayat and not before Court of competent jurisdiction. In fact such a court of the Magistrate is created under the Code of Criminal Procedure and in all its actions and orders, is governed by the procedure laid down by the said Code. It cannot, therefore, possibly be hold on any principle that when a proceeding is transferred from the Court of a Panchayat of competent jurisdiction to the Court of a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply to the latter Court or the proceedings. Id this view of the matter we fait to see how the Court of Session was not competent to call for and examine the proceedings of the Court of Shri J. P. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, which Court un. doubtedly was an inferior criminal Court situated within the local jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge. We therefore, are clearly the viewed that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge date fo September 29, 1978, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.

No other argument has been advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

In the light of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same.

S.S. Sandhawali, C.J.

I agree.