Zila Parishad vs Ghooran Singh and Another

R.P. Shukla, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-2-1982 passed by the then Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1981 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghazipur u/s 240 of the U.P. Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 directing Ghooran Singh to pay the licence fee of Rs. 170/- and further sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 100/-.

The brief facts are that on 4-11-1979 Prem Narain Singh, Revenue Inspector, alongwith his peon Raghubir Ram visited village Horilpatti and he found that Ghooran Singh, the present opposite party No. 1, was running a brick kiln without a licence which was a pre-requisite in view of the bye laws framed by the Zila Parishad u/s 239(2) of the Act. A demand for the licence fee was made by the Parishad but Ghooran Singh did not pay the same. On 22-4-1980 a notice was sent by Zila Parishad requiring him to pay the licence fee by 10-5-1980 but this notice too remained unheeded. Thereafter the Parishad filed a complaint through Atrikt Mukhya Adhikari. Ghooran Singh denied having run any brick kiln during the period 1979-80 and pleaded his false implication. The complainant i.e. Atrikia Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Parishad, examined Jamuna Prasad Singh, Licensing Head clerk as PW 1, Prem Narain Singh, Revenue Inspector as PW 2 and Raghubir Ram a peon as PW 3. The learned Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate relying on the evidence led by the complainant held Ghooran Singh guilty of the offence u/s 240 of the Act and fined him, as aforesaid. Aggrieved by this order Ghooran Singh went up in revision before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer on two counts, firstly that Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case and that the complaint was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by this order of the Sessions Judge, the Zila Parishad Ghazipur has preferred this revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, A.G.A. and have perused the record. The counsel for the Zila Parishad has assailed the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge on the ground that u/s 251 of the Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam Sessions Judge is not the appellate Authority and, therefore, he could not set aside the order of the learned Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ghazipur. Section 251 of U.P. Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam reads as under:

Any person aggrieved by any order or direction made by a Parishad or a Kshettra Samiti, as the case may be, under the powers, conferred upon it by Section 165(i), 171, 184, 191(6), 193, 202, 216, 218, 221 or under a bye-law made under sub head (a) of Heading I and under Heading E of Sub-section (2) of Section 239 may within thirty days from the date of such direction or order, exclusive of the time requisite for obtaining a copy thereof, appeal to such officers as the State Government may appoint, for the purpose of hearing such appeals of any of them or, failing such appointment to the District Magistrate.

A bare reading of Section 251 of the said Adhiniyam means that a person aggrieved by the order of the Parishad or Kshettra Samiti may appeal to the District Magistrate, or officer appointed by State Govt. to hear such appeal. It does not speak about the appellate authority against conviction recorded by a Magistrate on specific offence. Therefore the argument of the learned Counsel for Zila Parishad hold no water.

Section 247 of the said Adhiniyam makes a provision that a Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam only on the complaint or information received from the Parishad or the concerned Kshettra Samiti or some persons authorised by the Parishad or the concerned Kshettra Samiti by general or special order in this behalf. The complaint against Ghooran Singh, opposite party No. 1, was made by Atrikta Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Parishad, Ghazipur on 23-6-1980. On this complaint the Court could take cognizance u/s 241. Once the cognizance has been taken by the Court then the appellate authority will be the Sessions Judge only. There is no provision in the aforesaid act to the effect that the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate could take cognizance of the offences and, therefore, by implication, on the complaint of the Zila Parishad or Kshettra Samiti, as the case may be, it is the judicial Magistrate who will be competent to take cognizance of the offence and not the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The order of the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate is, the restore, without jurisdiction and hence illegal. In the circumstances the Sessions Judge was the sole appellate authority and therefore, competent to decide that the complaint was barred by limitation and the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and decide the case. No other point has been pressed before me. In the circumstances I find nothing to interfere with the judgment and order of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur setting aside the order of the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 9-2-1982 passed in Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1981 is hereby confirmed. Any amount, deposited in pursuance of the order of A.S.D.M. shall be refunded to the applicant.

In the result the revision is dismissed and the judgment and order of revisional Court is confirmed.

Revision dismissed.