Patna High Court
Ambica Missir vs Surpanch Of Gram Panchaity Biram Parsa ... on 16 July, 1957
Equivalent citations: AIR1958PAT94, 1957(5)BLJR599, 1958CRILJ209, 1957 BLJR 599, AIR 1958 PATNA 94
JUDGMENT Jamuar, J.
1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 3rd January, 1955 passed by the Gram Kutchery of Biram Parsa, within the district of Saran, convicting the petitioner Ambica M'ssir for contempt of court and sentencing him to imprisonment and also to pay a fine. The point takem in support of this petition by Mr. Bhabanand Mukherji is that the order passed by the aforesaid Gram Kutchery is without jurisdiction. The order convicting the petitioner would appear to have been for an offence committed by him under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that he had offered insult to the members of the Gram Kut-chery while they were sitting in a judicial proceeding and had thus committed an offence punishable under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Bhabanand Mukherji has pointed out that Section 62 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, provides a list of offences under the Penal Code over which a Bench of a Gram Kutchery has jurisdiction and it was submitted that the Gram Kutchery could try only such offences which are in that list and no other.
It will be noticed that the offence provided under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code is not within the list given in Section 62 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and, therefore, apparently that offence was not triable by the Gram Kutchery. It seems to me that this point has substance and ought to be accepted. Reference may be made to Sub-section (1) of Section 490 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides the procedure in certain cases of contempt. This sub-section refers to offences described in Section 175, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Significantly the list provided in Section 62 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act contains Sections 178 and 179, but Sections 175, 180 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code are excluded from that list.
This exclusion would appeaj to have been made by the Legislature deliberately, since while giving jurisdiction to the Gram Kutchery for the trial of offence as defined in Sections 178 and 179 of the Indian Penal Code, such jurisdiction was not given to the Gram Kutchery in respect of offences defined in Sections 175, 180 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, in my view the Gram Kutchery had no jurisdiction to try and punish the petitioner for an offence alleged to have been committed as provided under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The order passed by the Gram Kutchery of Biram Parsa, convicting the petitioner for contempt of court and awarding a punishment was without jurisdiction and must be set aside.
2. It may also be pointed out that as against the aforesaid order passed by the Gram Kutchery the petitioner had moved an application under Section 73 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Chapra, who had dismissed the application with the modification that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment which had been imposed upon the petitioner being illegal was set aside but the sentence of fine was maintained. It was pointed out that even the order of the sub divisional Magistrate was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 73 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, tor the reason that while he had the power to cancel the jurisdiction of the Gram Kutchery or to quash the proceedings or to cancel the order of the Gram Kutchery, he had no jurisdiction to modify that order. The order of the Subdivisional Magistrate, however, has also to be set aside, since the original order passed by the Gram Kutchery itself is being set aside on the ground of this order being without jurisdiction.
3. It is necessary, however, to point out that while the Gram Kutchery had no jurisdiction to try an offence as provided under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, the proper procedure in a case of this type which should have been followed was one as provided by Sections 195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 195 Sub-sec-tion (1)(b), provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code, including section, 228 of the Indian Penal Code,, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, except OH a complaint in writing of such court or of some other court to which such court is subordinate; and Section 476, Sub-section (1), lays down that when any civil, revenue on criminal court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195, Sub-section (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c), which appears to have : been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court, such court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the court and shall. forward the same to a magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction to try that offence. This was the procedure which the Gram Kutchery should have adopted rather than proceeding to try and punish the petitioner itself which it had no juris-diction to do.
4. The application filed by Ambica Missir is accordingly allowed and the order complained against is set aside.
Chaudhuri, J.
5. I agree.