Baldeo Singh and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 995 time, determined to see that their victim did not possibly escape the assassins' hands. As regards the second appellant, we need not say anything more than that he was lucky enough to escape conviction under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for the reasons 'given by the High Court, which may not bear close scrutiny. He amply deserves the punishment of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment under s. 326 of the Indian Penal Code. For the reasons aforesaid, both the appeals fail and are dismissed. _Appeals dismissed._ BALDEO SINGH AND OTHERS _v._ THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ### (S. R. DAS c. J., ]AFER IMAM, s. K. DAS, GOVINDA MENON and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) _Gram Cutchet'l'y-Criminal_ _Jurisdictio11-Concu1-re1,t_ _jurisdic-_ _tion_ _of ordinary ffiminal Courts-Enactment,_ _if_ _discriminatory in_ _character.-Bihar Panchayat Raj Act,_ 1947 _(Bihm·_ _Act_ 7 _of_ 1948), _ss._ _60,_ 62, _68, 69,_ _70,_ _73-Co11sti1t1tion_ _of India,_ _A1·t._ _14._ The appellants wcr~ coilvicte<l of an offence under s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code by a full bench of the Gram Cutcherry constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It was contended for the appellants that the convic· tion was bad on the grounds _int<T_ _alia,_ that s. 62 of the Act which provided for the criminal jurisdiction of Gram Cutcherries ga \'e concurrent jurisdiction to the ordinary criminal Courts and left it open to a party to go either to. the ordinary criminal Courts or to a bench of the Gram Cutcherry, and as the procedure followed in the ordinary criminal Courts was substantially different from that followed by a Gram Cutcherry, the Act was discriminatory in nature and as such infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution. _Held,_ that the impugned provisions of the Act · are net discriminatory in nature. The scheme of the Act is that a case or suit ·cognizable under the Act _by_ a Gram Cutcherry should be tried only by it unless the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Munsif concerned chooses to take action under s. 70 or s. 73 of the Act. The 1957" _V adioelu_ _The var_ v. . _The Stak_ _of_ _Madras_ _Sinha_ _J._ 1957 _April_ 2. 1957 _**Daf.deo**_ _**Singh**_ _**and**_ _**OtherJ**_ v. _**The**_ _**State**_ _**of**_ _**Bihar**_ _**and**_ _**OthtrJ**_ _S. /[.Das]._ 996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] **reference** **to** **concurrent** **jurisdiction** **in** **s.** **62** **is** **explainable** **by** **reason** **of** **the** **provisions** **in ss. 69,** **70** **and 73,** **so** **that on the** **transfer** **or** **withdrawal** **of** **a case** **fro1n** **the** Gr~un **Cutcherry or the** **cancellation** **of** **the** **jurisdiction** **of** **the** **bench,** **it** **may not** **be** **said that the ordinary criminal** **Courts also have no jurisdiction to** **try** **it.** **CRIMINAL** **APPELLATE** JuRISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 1955. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 20, 1954, of the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 228 of 1954 . _. S._ _P._ _Verma._ for the appellants. _R._ _C._ _Prasad._ for the respondents. 1957. Aoril 22. The Judgment of the Court was ·delivered b~ S. K. DAs J.-J'his is an appeal by special leave from an order cf summary dismissal passed by the High Court of Pama on lulv 20. 1954. on an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The relevant facts are these. One Uma Shankar Prasad instituted a case against eight persons, including the three appellants before us. Baldeo Singh, Ramdeo Singh and Sheodhar Singh, on the allegation that they had forcibly cut and removed 'urad' and 'kodo' crops from his field in village Darwan on October **1.** 1953. at about IO a.m. Uma Shankar said that he objected, but was threatened with assault. The case was instituted before the Gram Cutcherry of Bankat in the district of Chamoaran, constituted under the provisions of the Biha,- Panchavat Raj Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 7 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Altogether four witnesses were examined in the case, two on behalf of the prosecution and two for the accused persons. The defence of some of the accused persons was that the land on which the crops stood belonged to one Yogi Sahni. who had sold it to Sunder Singh, accused, on September 25. 1953. On December 28, 1953, a bench of the Gram Cutcherry acquitted all the accused persons. On Tanuary 7, 1954, Uma Shankar Prasad preferred an appeal under s. 67 of the Act. The appeal was heard on June 24, 1954, S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS _997_ and the full bench by a majority, with three dissentient panches, held the three appellants guilty of the offence under s. 379, Indian Penal Code. and sentenced them to imprisonment for fifteen days each. The appellants then moved the High Court of Patna under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. with the result stated above. The appellants then moved this Court and obtained special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed the following contentions before _us._ His first and foremost contention is that the Act, bv reason of certain provmons contained therein, · is discriminatory in nature and offends against Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is advisable to set out first those provisions of the Act which, according to learned counsel for 'the appellants, are discriminatory in character. Section 62 of the Act, which provides for the criminal iurisdiction of Gram Cutcherries, is in these terms : 1957 _Ba!tleo Singh_ _and_ _Others_ "· _The State af_ _Bihor and_ _Othm_ _S._ _K._ _Do,]._ "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and subiect to the provisions of this Act. a bench of the Gram Cutcherry shall have jurisdiction concurrent with that of the Criminal Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the bench is situate for the trial of the following offences as well as abetment of and attempts to commit any such offence, if committed within the local limits of its jurisdiction, namely : (a) offences under the • Indian Penal Code, sections 140, 143, 145, 147, 151, 153, 160, 172. 174, 178, 179, 269, 277, 279, 283, 285, 286, 289, 290, 294, 323, 334, 336, 341, 352, 356, 357, 358, 374, 379, 380, 381, 403, 411. 426, 428, 430, 447, 448, 461, 504, 506, 510 ; (b) offences under the Bengal Public Gambling Act, 1867: ( c) offences under sections 24 and 26 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 : ( d) except as otherwise provided, offences under this Act or under · any rule or bye-law made thereunder ; ( e) any other offence under any other enactment, if empowered in this behalf by the Government : 1957 _**Baldeo**_ _**Singh**_ _**and**_ _**Otlu1s**_ v. _T"' State_ _qf_ _**Bihar and**_ _**Othtrs**_ _S._ _K._ Dar _J._ 998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] Provided that the bench shall not take cognizance of ahy offence under sections 379, 380, 381 or 411 of the Indian Penal Code in which the value of the property alleged to be stolen exceeds fifty rupees or in which the accused(i) has been previously convicted of an offence punishable under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards; or (ii) has been previously fined for theft by any bench of the Gram Cutcherry ; or (iii) is a registered member of a criminal tribe under section 4 of the Criminal Tribes Act, 1924 ; or (iv) has been bound over to be of good behaviour in proceedings instituted under section 109 or 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898." It is worthy of note that the section contains two important qualifications : one is contained in the nonobstante clause with which the section begins and the other is contained in the expression 'subject to the prqvisions of this Act.' The importance of this second qualification will be apparent when some of the other provisions of the Act are set out. Subject to the two qualifications mentioned above, s. 62 gives a bench of the Gram Cutcherry jurisdiction concurrent with that of the ordinary criminal . Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the bench is situate for the trial of the offences mentioned therein. Section 63 vests the bench with the powers of a Magistrate of the third class. Section 64 is not relevant for our purpose and need not be read. Section 65 provides for _exclusive_ civil jurisdiction of a bench of the Gram Cutcherry in certain classes of suits, subject to certain provisos. Section 66 says that certain suits shall not be heard by a bench of the Gram Cutcherry. Section 67 provides for appeals. Then comes s. 68, which is very important for our purpose and must be quoted in extenso- "No court shall take cognizance of any case or suit which is cognizable under the Act by a bench of the Gram Cutcherry unless an order to the contrary has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or S.C.R. SUPREME COURT **REPORTS** 999 the Munsif concerned under the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force." Section 69 gives the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Munsif power to transfer a case or suit pending before a Magisuate or a MunsiJ to a bench of the Gram Cutchen1' having jurisdiction to try it. Section 70 gives the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Munsif power to withdraw any case or suit pending before a bench of the Gram Cutcherry and transfer the same to the ordinary Courts. Section 71 provides, _inter_ _alia,_ that no legal practitioner shall appear, plead or act on behalf of any party in any suit or case before the Gram Cutcherry. Section 73 gives power to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Munsif to take necessary action when there has been a miscarriage of justice or there is an apprehension of a miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (2) of s. 73 says that when an order under sub-s. ( 1) has been made in respect of any suit or case, the complainant or the plaintiff, as the case may be, may institute the case or suit afresh in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a Munsif of competent jurisdiction. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that inasmuch as s. 62 gives only concurrent jurisdiction, it leaves it open to a party to go either to the ordinarv criminal Courts or to a bench of the Gram Cutche;ry. According to him, this opens the door for discrimination, because the procedure followed in the ordinary criminal Courts is substantially different from tliat followed by a Gram Cutcherry. The procedure to be followed by the latter is indicated in s. 60 which states : "Subject to the provisions of this Act and to am rules or directions that mav be made or issued bv the Government in this behalf, the procedure to be f~l!ow­ ed by a bench of the Gram Cutcherry shall be such as it rn~ty co!1sidcr just and convenient and the bc:Kh shall not be bound _to_ _fol\mv_ anv laws of evidence o;: procedure other than the procedure prescribed bv or under tliis Act." This argument as to cfocriminaiion fails to take note of the other pro·:isions 0£ the Act which we have set 4--61 S. C. Indi:\/59 1957 _Ba/deo Singh_ ~and _Others_ v. _The State o_ _Bihar and_ _Othm_ _S._ _K._ _Das]._ 1957 _**Baldeo**_ _**Singh**_ _**and**_ _**Others**_ v. _**The:s1ate**_ _**of**_ Bi~ar _**and**_ _**Others**_ _S._ _K._ _Das]._ 1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] out above. Section 62 is. in express terms, subject to other provisions of the Act ; therefore, it is subject to s. 68 which states that no Court shall take cognizance ## °" of any case or suit which is cognizable under the Act by a bench of the Gram Cutcherry, unless an order to the contrary bas been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Munsif concerned under the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force. On a proper construction of _s._ 62 and s. 68. it is clear that there is really no discrimination and a case cognizable by a bench of the Gram Cutcherry must be tried there. unless there bas been an order to the contrary in the exercise of his judicial discretion by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Munsif con###### cerned as contemplated by the latter part of s. 68. The ~ provisions of the Act under which such an order can be passed are contained in the succeeding sections already referred to by us. The whole scheme of Cb. VII of the Act is that a case or suit cognizable under the Act by a Gram Cutcberrv should be tried by a bench of the Gram Cutcherry save in those exceptional cases which are provided for in ss. 70 and 73. The reference to concurrent jurisdiction in s. 62 is explainable by reason of the provisions in ss. 69, 70 and 73, so that on the transfer or withdrawal of a case from the Gram Cutcberry or the cancellation of the jurisdiction of the bench, it may not be said that the ordinary criminal # y Courts also have no jurisdiction to try it. ##### For these reasons, we are nf the view that tk impugned provisions of the Act are not discriminatory in nature, and there is no merit in the first contention pressed before us. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellants has referred us to rr. 60 and 61 of the Bibar Gram Cutcberry Rules, 1949. Rule 60(2) requires that the decision of the full bench shall be signed by the members and where a dissentient judgment has been delivered, the minute of dissent shall also be recorded . ~·· •. under the signatures of the dissenting members. These r requirements were fulfilled in the present case, and no materials have been placed before us which may lead to the conclusion that rr. 60 and 61 have been violated. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1001 The third and last cor1tention on behalf of the appellants is that the conviction of t;vo of the appellants, Ramdeo Singh and Sheodhar Singh, is bad, because there was _no_ _evidence_ _at_ _all_ against them. The two witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution definitely said that they saw Baldeo Singh (appellant) and two other named persons who have been acquitted, but <lid not identify the rcmaiuing persons who aho forcibly cut an,! removed the crops. Oa this evidence, there was no legal basis for the conviction of Ramdeo SinglL and Shcodhar Singh. Our attention bas been drawn to Ramdeo Singh's own statement in which he said that he had removed the crops of _his_ _own_ _field_ That statement, standing by itself. is not an admission of guilt. We agree with learned counsel for the appellants that there was no evidence whatever to sustain the conviction of Ramdeo Singh and Sheodhar Singh. Their conviction was manifestiv, and on the face of the record, erroneous., The High Court was moved for the exerme of its power of superi1m:ndence under Art. 227, and it is open to us in this appeal to exercise the same power. We would accordingly allow this appeal so far as Ramdeo Singh and Sheodhar Singh are concerned and set aside their conviction and sentence. They will now be discharged from bail. So far as Bakko Singh is concerned, he was rightly convicted. We do not, however, think that any useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail for a short period. We would accordingly reduce his sentence to a fine· of Rs. 30/only or in default imprisonment as directed by the full bench of the Gram Cutcherry. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. _Appeal_ _disposed_ _of accordingly._ 1957 _Ba/deo_ _Singh_ _and_ _Others_ v. _The_ _Stalt of_ _Bihar and_ _Others_ S. _K._ _Das]._