1952 (1) TMI 28 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 561A, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
2. Validity of the proceedings and judgment of the Panchayati Adalat.
3. Non-explanation of charges to the accused.
4. Appointment of a commission by the Sarpanch.
5. Sufficiency of evidence to constitute an offense under Section 160, Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Application:
The application was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 561A, CrPC, seeking to quash the proceedings and conviction by the Panchayati Adalat. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent's counsel was based on Section 85 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, which states that the decrees or orders of the Panchayati Adalat are final and not open to appeal or revision in any Court. The argument was that Article 227 applies only to administrative matters and not judicial matters. However, the Court provided a historical analysis of analogous provisions prior to the Constitution, emphasizing that Article 227 of the Constitution of India grants the High Court superintendence over all Courts and tribunals, including judicial matters. The Court concluded that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is not limited to administrative matters and extends to judicial matters as well.

2. Validity of the Proceedings and Judgment of the Panchayati Adalat:
The Panchayati Adalat's proceedings were found to be irregular and ultra vires. The bench of five panches appointed to try the case was interfered with by the Sarpanch, who was not a member of the bench. The Sarpanch appointed a commission and practically took charge of the case, which was beyond his jurisdiction as per the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The judgment was signed by only three out of the five panches and the Sarpanch, making it void in law. The Court held that the entire proceedings were ultra vires and any conviction based thereon must be considered null and void.

3. Non-explanation of Charges to the Accused:
The accused argued that the charges were not explained to them, as mandated by Rule 95 under the Panchayat Raj Act. The Court agreed that there was no indication that this mandatory provision was complied with, which necessarily prejudiced the accused. The failure to explain the charges rendered the conviction improper.

4. Appointment of a Commission by the Sarpanch:
The Sarpanch, who was not a member of the bench, appointed a commission to investigate the case. This action was beyond his jurisdiction as per Section 83 of the Panchayat Raj Act, which allows the Adalat itself to make local investigations but does not permit the appointment of a commission. The Court noted that the bench abdicated its function by merely adopting the recommendations of the Sarpanch and the commission without applying its own mind, which was not warranted by the Act or the rules made thereunder.

5. Sufficiency of Evidence to Constitute an Offense under Section 160, IPC:
The Court examined the complaint and evidence to determine if an offense under Section 160, IPC (affray), was made out. The complaint described an incident where the accused rushed to the scene but did not engage in a fight. The Court cited legal precedents indicating that an affray requires a bilateral fight, which was not present in this case. The evidence did not establish that the accused committed an affray, as there was no fighting or disturbance of public peace.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the application, set aside the convictions of the accused, and ordered that the fine, if paid, be refunded. The judgment emphasized the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the irregularities in the Panchayati Adalat's proceedings, and the insufficiency of evidence to constitute the charged offense.