Zila Parishad vs Ghooran Singh and Another

R.P. Shukla, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.02.1982 passed by the then Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Revision No 180 of 1981 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gasper u/s 240 to the U.P. Ksbettra Samities and Zila Paris had Adhiniyam, 1961 denting Shoran Singh to pay the license fee of Rs. 170/- and further sentencing him to pay fine of RS. 100/-.

The brief facts are that on 04.11.1979 Perm Narain Singh, Revenue Inspector, along with his peon Rehabber Ram visited village Hon Patti and he found that Shoran Singh, the present opposite party No. 1, was running a brick kiln without a license which was a pre-requisite in view of the bye laws framed by the Zila Paris had u/s 239(2) of the Act. A demand for the license fee was made by the Paris had but Shoran Singh did not pay the same. On 22.04.1980 a notice was sent by Zila Paris had requiring him to pay the license fee by 10.05.1980 but this notice too remained unheeded? Thereafter the Paris had filed a complaint through Attract Mocha Adhockery. Shoran Singh denied having run any brick kiln during the period 1979-80 and pleaded his false implication. The complainant i. e Attrite Mushy Adrian, Zila Paris had. examined jejuna Prasad Singh, Licensing Head Clerk as HW 1, Perm Narain Singh, Revenue Inspector as Paw 2 and Kaghubir Ram a peon as PW The learned Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate relying on the evidence led by the complainant held Shoran Singh guilty of the offence u/s 240 of the Act and fired dim, as aforesaid. Aggrieved by this order Shoran 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 A-as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by this order of the Sessions Judge, the Zila Paris had Gasper has preferred this revision.

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

251 Any person aggrieved by any order or direction made by a Paris had or a Kshettra Samiti. as the case may be, under the powers, conferred upon it by Section 165(1), 171, 184, 191 (1), 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 fifers as the State Government may appoint, for the purpose of hearing such appeals or 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 Paris had or Kshettra Samiti may appeal to the District Magistrate, or officer appointed by State Gove 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 tore Zila Paris had holds no water.

Section 247 of the said Athenian makes a provision that a court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Kosher Samities and Zila Paris had Athenian only on the complaint or information received tromp the Paris had or the concerned Kshettra Samiti or some persons authorized by the Paris had or the concerned Kshettra Samiti by general or special older in this behalf. The complaint against Shoran Singh, opposite party No. I, was made by Attrite Mushy Adhockery, Zila Paris had, Gasper on 23.01.1980. On this complaint the court could take cognizance u/s 247. Once the cognizance has been taken by the court then the appellate authority ill be the Sessions Judge only. There is no provision in the aforesaid Act to the effect teat the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate could take cognizance of me silences and, therefore, by implication, on the complaint of the Zila Paris had or Ski Etna Samiti, as the case may be, it is the Judicial Magistrate who will be coiiipeteii to take cognizance of the offence and not the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Toe order of the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate is. Anterior, without jurisdiction and hence illegal. In the circumstances the Sessions Judge was the sole appellate authority and therefore, competent to decide that tie 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 tire. Judgment and order of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge. Ghazipur setting aside the order of the Additional Sub-section visional Magistrate, the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 9.02.1982 passed in Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1981 is hereby confirmed. Any amount, deposited m pursuance of the order of A.S.D.M. shall be retuned to the applicant.

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