iminal Appeal No 22 of 1954
1446 Appeal under Article 1341 c of the Constitution from the Judgment and Order dated the 27th October 1953 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Reference No 121 of 1953
K P Gupta and A D Mathur for the appellant
K B Asthana and C P Lal for the respondent
March 15
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J
This is an appeal by leave granted by the High Court of Allahabad presumably under article 1341c of the Constitution
The facts are simple
Three persons including the appellant were at the material time parcel porters at the railway station Manikpur in the district Banda of Uttar Pradesh
On the night of the 18th June 1952 they were found by two watchmen of the Watch and Ward staff attached to the railway station committing theft of certain packets of biscuits by breaking open a railway parcel containing those packets which as parcel porters they had occasion to handle
First information of the same was lodged before the Sub Inspector Railway Police by one Ram Prasad Head Watchman
The Railway Police filed the charge sheet under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code on the 20th June 1952
The case was taken cognizance of by the Railway Magistrate Manikpur
All the three accused pleaded guilty
They were convicted by the Magistrate on the 15th July 1952 and sentenced to a fine of Rs 25 each
Against this conviction the present appellant filed a revision to the Sessions Judge of Banda
It is necessary at this stage to mention that under the U P Panchayat Raj Act 1947 the Panchayati Adalats in U P have criminal jurisdiction in certain matters
The point taken before the Sessions Judge was that by virtue of the said Act the present case should have been tried by the Panchayati Adalat and that the Railway Magistrate had no jurisdiction
This contention was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge
He accordingly made a reference to the High Court for quashing the conviction 1447 and sentence
It came before a Single Judge of the High Court who did not feel quite satisfied that the Railway Magistrate had jurisdiction
But without deciding the question one way or the other he declined to accept the reference on the ground that the revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court was J discretionary
Somewhat curiously however the learned Judge granted a certificate against his own judgment that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court
If the learned Judge thought fit to grant leave to appeal he might well have himself decided the question involved so that we should have had the benefit of his consideration of the same
To decide the question of jurisdiction thus raised it is necessary to notice the scheme of the U P Panchayat Raj Act 1947 UP Act XXVI of 1947 here in after referred to as the Act and a few relevant sections of the same
It may be mentioned that the Act appears to have undergone some amendments in the year 1952 and recently in 1955
These amendments have no application to the present case
Under the Act as it stood at the time of the commission of the offence and the conviction there for the scheme thereunder is as follows Under section 3 the State Government shall by notification in the official Gazette establish a Gaon Sabha for every village or group of villages
Under section 42 the State Government or the prescribed authority shall divide a district into circles each circle comprising as many areas subject to the jurisdiction of Gaon Sabhas as may be expedient
The State Government shall also establish Panchayati Adalats for each such circle provided that the areas of Gaon Sabhas within each circle shall as far as possible be contiguous
Under section 43 every Gaon Sabha in a circle shall elect five adults of prescribed qualification permanently residing within its jurisdiction to act as Panches in the Panchayati Adalat of that circle
The Panches so elected by all the Gaon Sabhas in a circle shall form a panel
Under section 44 all the Panches elected under section 43 shall elect from among themselves a person who is able to record proceedings and to act 185 1448 as Sarpanch of the Panchayati Adalat
As will be seen from the subsequent sections the Panchayati Adalat has jurisdiction to deal with all disputes and cases both civil and criminal arising within its area but it is enough for the present case to notice only those portions which relate to criminal jurisdiction Section 521 provides that certain specified Offences if committed within the jurisdiction of a Panchayati Adalat which in this context must be taken to refer to local jurisdiction shall be cognizable by such Panchayati Adalat
The clauses of sub section 1 of section 52 specify the various classes of offences under the Indian Penal Code and under some other special and local Acts which are within the cognizance of the Panchayati Adalat
Section 379 Indian Penal Code is one of the sections so enumerated and it is specifically provided that the jurisdiction of the Adalat in respect of this offence is only where the theft of the stolen property does not exceed Rs 50 Section 511 provides that not with stand anything contained in the Code of Criminal Pro cedure 1898 every case instituted under the Act shall be instituted before the Sarpanch of the Panchayati Adalat of the circle in which the offence is committed
It is also provided under section 55 that no court shall take cognizance of any case which is cognizable under the Act by the Panchayati Adalat unless an Order has been passed by a Sub Divisional Magistrate under section
Section 851 authorises a Sub Divisional Magistrate on an application of a party or on his own motion to cancel the jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalat with regard to any pending case if there is an apprehension of miscarriage of justice
Section 49 provides the machinery for the trial of Cases by the formation of benches to deal with the same
It is necessary to set out the whole of that section in so far as it relates to criminal cases and it is as follows 49
1 The Sarpanch shall for the trial of every case form a bench of five Panches from the panel the panel referred to in section 43 above noticed
provided that at least one of the Panches in the bench 1449 shall be a person who is able to record evidence and proceedings
2 Every such bench shall include one Panch who resides in the area of the Gaon Sabha in which the complainant of a case resides and likewise one Panch in the area in which the accused resides and J three Panches residing in the area of the Gaon Sabha in which neither party resides provided that in police cases one Panch shall be such as may be residing in the Gaon Sabha in which the offence was committed one Panch residing in the area of Gaon Sabha in which the accused resides and three Panches residing in the areas other than those mentioned above
3            4 Notwithstanding anything contained in this section the State Government may by rules prescribe the constitution of special benches for  determining any dispute arising between any parties or Gaon Sabhas or different circles or for any other purpose
One of the rules framed with reference to this subsection which is relevant for the present purpose is rule 84 and is as follows For the purposes of trial or decision of any case or proceeding parties of which are residents of different circles or different districts or any one of the parties is a resident of a place not governed by the Act the prescribed authority having jurisdiction over the Panchayati Adalat in which a case or proceeding is instituted or transferred for disposal shall constitute a special bench consisting of Panches of the said Panchayati Adalat and if convenient and possible may include a Panch of the other circle and shall appoint one of them as Chairman of the bench unless the Sarpanch is a member of it
The question of jurisdiction arises with reference to  the above provisions of the Act
The charge sheet filed by the police shows that the theft of the property involved in the case is Rs 3
There can also be no doubt that the offence has been committed within the limits of Manikpur
It would appear therefore prima 1450 facie that by virtue of sections 51 and 52 the Panchayati Adalat of Manikpur had jurisdiction to try the case
If so the jurisdiction of the regular Magistrate would appear to be barred under section 55 of the Act since it isnot suggested that there has been any order under section 85
But there is a serious difficulty in the way of the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Adalat
The jurisdiction of the Adalat to try any criminal case has to be exercised by a bench of the Panches to be formed by the Sarpanch under section 49 of the Act
The bench has to consist of five Panches of whom one is to be of the Gaon Sabha of Manikpur since the offence was committed in that place and this is a police case and another belonging to the Gaon Sabha of the accused and the other three from Gaon Sabhas outside the above two
Where there is only one accused and that accused belongs to an area within Uttar Pradesh for which a Gaon Sabha has been formed under the Act or where there are more than one accused all belonging to the area of the same Gaon Sabha the constitution of a bench of the Panchayati Adalat for the trial of such a case presents no difficulty
But in the present case it is on the record that one out of the three accused by name Tulsi belongs to Jubbalpore in Madhya Pradesh
It was therefore not possible to constitute a bench in strict compliance with section 492 of the Act to try his case
Recourse had therefore to be had to section 494 and the rules framed thereunder
The relevant rule 84 which has been quoted above no doubt provides for the constitution of special benches to try cases where there are more than one accused who are residents of different areas
Now this rule in so far as it provides for cases wherein all the parties concerned are residentsof Uttar Pradesh may be unexception able
But whether it is valid in so far as it provides for the exercise of jurisdiction in respect of a resident outside the State may be open to argument on more grounds than one
In the present case it is sufficient to consider whether this portion of the rule is valid with reference to section 494 under which it is 1451 framed
Section 494 authorises the Government to frame rules for the constitution of special benches for determining disputes between parties of different circles or Gaon Sabhas or for any other purpose
Circles or Gaon Sabhas mentioned herein has reference only to circles and Gaon Sabhas constituted  under the Act
This does not authorise the framing of a rule in so far as it relates to a person belonging to a place outside the State
Nor can the phrase for any other purpose in sub section 4 of section 49 whatever that may mean be construed so widely as to authorise a rule affecting such an outsider assuming without deciding that a statutory provision by a State Legislature can directly or by delegation and in terms validly provide for the exercise of such jurisdiction by a Panchayati Adalat
We are clearly of the opinion that rule 84 in so far as it relates to the constitution of a special bench where one of the parties belongs to a place outside the State is ultra vires
Hence no competent bench could be constituted under section 49 of the Act for the trial of the present case in which there are three accused of whom one is a person belonging to a different State
Now in these circumstances it has to be considered whether the trial of this case by the ordinary criminal Court is barred
The bar of the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal Court is brought about by section 55 of the Act
But it requires to be noticed that the bar which is brought about by the section is a bar which relates to the case as a whole
Because in terms what it says is no court shall take cognizance of any case which is cognizable under the Act by a Panchayati Adalat
Under section 2a of the Act a case is defined as meaning criminal proceeding in respect of an offence triable by a Panchayati Adalat and Panchayati Adalat is defined as including a bench thereof
It is clear therefore that this bar has reference to the entire proceeding ie as involving all the accused together
Such a bar in
respect of the entire case can be operative only where there is a valid machinery for the trial thereof
In the present case in which at least one of the accused 1452 though not this very
appellant is a person coming from an area outside the local extent of the Act any bench of the Adalat that can be validly formed there 
under cannot try the three accused together and hence can have no Jurisdiction over the whole case
The jurisdiction of the regular criminal court in respect of such a case cannot be taken away by the operation of section 55 of the Act
It is to be remembered that the jurisdiction of the criminal courts under section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is comprehensive
That section enjoins that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated enquired into tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained
To the extent that no valid machinery is set up under the UP Panchayat Raj  Act for the trial of any Particular case the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal court under section 5 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be held to have been excluded
Exclusion of jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction can be brought about by the setting no of a court of limited jurisdiction in respect of the limited field only if the vesting and the exercise of that limited jurisdiction is clear and operative
Where as in this case there is no adequate machinery for the exercise of this jurisdiction in a specific case we cannot hold that the exercise of jurisdiction in respect of such a case by the Court of general jurisdiction is illegal
We are therefore of the opinion that the Railway Magistrate had the jurisdiction to try the case
The appeal is accordingly dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Three accused were convicted by a Magistrate under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code of the offence of theft of the value of Rs 3 and sentenced to a fine of Rs 25 each
The question for determination was whether the case should have been tried by a Panchayat Adalat constituted under the U P Panchayat Raj Act 1947 and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try it
Two of the accused belonged to U P State and the third belonged to Madhya Pradesh State
Section 521 of the Act provides that certain specified offences including the offence of theft when the value of stolen property does 1445 not exceed Rs 50  shall be cognizable by a Panchayat Adalat
Section 55 provides that no court shall take cognizance of any case which is cognizable under the Act by the Panchayat Adalat
Section 49 provides  491 The Sarpanch shall for the trial of every case form a bench of five Panches from the panel referred to in section 43
2 Every such bench shall include one Panch who resides in the area of the Gaon Sabha in which the complainant of a case resides and likewise one Panch in the area in which the accused resides and three Panches residing in the area of the Gaon Sabha in which neither party resides provided that in police cases one Panch shall be such as may be residing in the Gaon Sabha in which the offence was committed one Panch residing in the area of Gaon Sabha in which the accused resides and three Panches residing in the areas other than those mentioned above
Rule 84 framed by the State Government under section 494 of the Act reads as follows  For the purposes of trial or decision of any case or proceeding parties of which are residents of different circles or different districts or any one of the parties is a resident of a place not governed by the Act the prescribed authority having jurisdiction over the Panchayati Adalat in which a case or proceeding is instituted or transferred for disposal shall constitute a special bench consisting of Panches of the said Panchayati Adalat and if convenient and possible may include a Panch of the other circle and shall appoint one of them as Chairman of the bench unless the Sarpanch is a member of it
Held that inasmuch as in the present case one out of the accused belonged to Madhya Pradesh it was not possible to constitute a bench in strict compliance with section 492 of the Act to try his case
Section 84 in so far as it relates to the constitution of a special bench where one of the parties belongs to a place outside the State of U P is ultra vires
Hence no competent bench could be constituted under section 49 of the Act for the trial of the present case in which there were three accused one of whom was a person belonging to a different State
Under the circumstances the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts was not excluded
Exclusion of jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction can be brought about by the setting up of a court of limited jurisdiction in respect of the limited field only if the vesting and the exercise of that limited jurisdiction is clear and operative
The bar under section 55 of the Act relates to the case as a whole and has reference to the entire proceeding in respect of all the accused together