IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.34 of 2011 AWADH KISHORE TIWARI SON OF LATE INDRADEO TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARWAT PASTRAINE, BETTIAH, P.S. BETTIAH MUFASSIL, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPLARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH LAW SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 2. BANDHU HAZRA SON OF LATE JAGDEO HAZRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARWAT PASRAINE, P.S BETTIAT MUFASSIL, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2 04.04.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner challenges the order dated 29th October, 2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 34 of 2010 as contained in Annexure-5. The aforesaid order has been passed on the petition dated 01.10.2010 filed on behalf of the petitioner vide Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit. In the said petition the petitioner assailed the order taking cognizance of the offences under sections 323, 341, 504 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said petition besides the order taking cognizance petitioner has also prayed for referring the matter to the Gram Kutchery for its trial in terms of section 114 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Petitioner assailing the order taking cognizance vide the order dated 01.07.2010 preferred a Criminal Revision which was heard and dismissed by order dated 19.08.2010 as contained in Annexure-4 upholding that taking cognizance is not a legal bar. The revision was dismissed with observation however that if petition so advised may move an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the concerned Magistrate if he so desires to send the case to the concerned Gram Kutchery. Petitioner in view of the above observations, filed the aforesaid application as contained in Annexure-6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even after passing the order taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences, the case could be transferred to the Gram Kutchery for disposal of the trial as requested by the petitioner in his aforesaid petition which was rejected by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that notwithstanding the above the offences in question for which cognizance has been taken could not be referred to the Gram Kutchery for the reason that in terms of section 107 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 the Gram Kutchery could not pass any order of sentence imposing a fine of more than Rs. 1000/- and no order for imprisonment either simple or rigorous could be passed. It is submitted that for the offences in question upon trial the petitioner could be convicted and sentenced for imprisonment, and as such, the matter could not be transferred to the Gram Kutchery. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the submissions advanced on behalf of the State has got force that since for the offence in question the punishment imposable under law, if it can not be imposed by the Gram Kutchery, the matter was rightly not referred to the Gram Kutchery. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order declining the transfer of the case to the Gram Kutchery. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)