CAPOOR, J. - (1.) THIS application came up for hearing before our brother, Mathur, J., who directed the papers to toe laid before the Honble the Chief Justice for referring the following question for decision to a larger Bench : "Can the High court interfere with the order Of the Nyaya Panchayat passed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and also the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in revision under Sec. 89 of the Act in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 561-A, Cr. P.C. ?" In order to arrive at a correct decision of the question under consideration reference may usefully be made to some of the relevant provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Section 83 of that Act prescribes the procedure for the trial of a civil, criminal or revenue case cognizable by a Nyaya Panchayat. It, inter alia, provider that the Nyaya Panchayat shall follow the procedure prescribed by or under the Act and further that the C.P.C. 1908, Cr. P.C. 1898, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 shall not apply to any such case except as provided in the Act or as may be prescribed. There is nothing in the Act or in the rules framed thereunder indicating that Sec. 561-A of Cr. P.C. will be applicable to a criminal case tried by a Nyaya Panchayat. Section 89 provides for a revision of an order made toy a Nyaya Panchayat in a civil, criminal or revenue case tried by it. It also sets forth the grounds on which an application in revision would be entertainable. Sub-sec. (4) of that section lays down that except as provided, a decree or order passed toy the Nyaya Panchayat in any civil, criminal or revenue case shall not be open to appeal or revision in any Court.
(2.) ON a reference to the aforesaid provisions the following facts stand in bold relief : . - 1. That the Nyaya Panchayat is to follow the procedure laid down in the Act or in the rules framed thereunder while trying a civil, criminal or a revenue case. 2. That, inter alia, the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to a criminal case before B Nyaya Panchayat. 3. That the order of a Nyaya Panchayat is revisable on grounds stated in Sec. 89, and 4. That an order passed by a Nyaya Panchayat is not open to appeal or revision in any Court except as provided in the Act. Stated differently, the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with an order passed by a Nyaya Panchayat or by the revising authority in the exercise of re visional or appellate powers is expressly barred. The question for consideration is as to whether a High Court can, under Sec. 561-A of Cr. P.C., interfere with an order passed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act either by the Nyaya Panchayat or by the revising authority. That section reads as below : "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect that inherent power of the High Court to mate such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." The section does not confer any additional powers on a High Court. It merely declares that such inherent powers as the High Court possesses, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice shall not be limited or affected by any provision in the Cr. P.C. The section is a statutory recognition of the powers which inhered in the High Court. The section was introduced in the statute book by the Cr. P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1023, as it was held by this Court that in the exercise of inherent powers it could not expunge objectionable remarks in the judgment of a lower court.
(3.) IN the case of Vishnu Ghanshyam Emperor, AIR 1941 Nag 97, the following observations were made at page 98 by Vivian Bose, J. : - "It is urged that the High Court has powers under S. 561A, Cr. P.C. But I am clear that that section can have no application to a matter of this Kind. That section confers no fresh or new or additional powers on the High Court. It merely states that the existing powers are not circumscribed by anything in the Cr. P.C. except in so far as the sections expressly dealing with them do so." Section 30 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act curtailed the powers of the High Court with regard to the cases arising under that Act and the question arose whether in spite of such curtailment the High Court could interfere in the exercise of its inherent powers and the contention was repelled in the following words :- "It is well known that inherent powers cannot be invoked where the Legislature expressly deals with the matter. It has dealt with the matter in this case. It has stated that no proceeding purporting to be taken under the Act shall be called in question except in one particular matter and in one particular way. That is express and absolute. No general section conferring inherent powers can be invoked in the face of that." The revisional powers of the High Court were taken away by Cl. 26 of the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance (2 of 1942) and a question arose as to whether the High Court could interfere with the orders passed by the criminal courts in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and their Lordships of the Judicial Committee held that"no court could claim inherent jurisdiction to exercise powers expressly taken away by legislation."Cl. 26 of the special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942 expressly took away all powers of revision by the High Court and consequently the High Court did not possess inherent jurisdiction to interfe re with the order off Special Magistrate acting under that Ordinance, vide Kumar Singh Chhajor v. Emperor, AIR 1946 P.C. 169.;