Criminal Revision No. 2273 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 2273 of 2003 Date of Decision: 11.2.2010 Gram Panchayat of village Marwa, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib …Petitioner Versus Boota Singh and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Gram Panchayat of village Marwa, filed an application for summoning of Boota Singh son of Rachan Singh and Karnail Singh son of Achhra Singh. Boota Singh and Karnail Singh, respondents were sought to be summoned on an application filed by one Dara Singh. In the application, Dara Singh had complained to the Gram Panchayat that the respondents had caused interference along with their wives in his possession over piece of land, for raising construction of wall, regarding which suit was pending. The Gram Panchayat sought to invoke Section 50 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which vest power in the Gram Criminal Revision No. 2273 of 2003 2 Panchayat that if accused fail to appear before the Gram Panchayat, then the Gram Panchayat can report to the Magistrate and the accused can be summoned by the Magistrate. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, came to conclusion that accused had failed to appear before the Gram Panchayat and directed them to furnish bonds for a sum of Rs.6,000/- with one surety in the like amount and appear before the Gram Panchayat within one month. Accused/respondents, aggrieved against this order, filed a revision petition. The revision petition was accepted on the ground that Boota Singh was employed as Senior Assistant in the office of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bassi Pathana, therefore, in view of the bar of Section 46 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, he could not be summoned by the Panchayat. The summons were issued by the Gram Panchayat in the year 2000. A period of ten years are going to elapse. By now, the dispute may have resolved. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 11, 2010 “DK”