V.D. Bhargava, J. - (1.) THE Appellant, who is a resident and Sabhapati of Gramsabha Balapur, police station Kotwali, District Rae Bareli, has been charged under Section 162 and in the alternative under Section 163, I.P.C. for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 12 on the 25th February, 1954, from one Surajbali. The allegation against him was that Surajbali had filed a complaint against one Manni Mahraj in the Panchayati Adalat, Salimpur Seeki, and the accused had assured him that he would get the complaint decided in his favour. Surajbali approached the district authorities before paying the money to the accused and thereafter a trap was laid in which a Magistrate and the Kotwal took part and Rs. 12 in one rupee notes are recovered from the pocket of the Appellant. The case was tried under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act XLVI of 1952) and he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 by the learned Sessions Judge.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant has taken objection to the legality of the trial as according to his contention, under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act no trial under Section 162 or 163 of the Indian Penal Code could be held. Section 6 reads as follows: 6. Power to appoint special Judges - - (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many special judges as many be necessary for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences namely: (a) an offence punishable under Section 161, Section 165 or Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) or Sub -section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947) (b) Any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in Clause (a). (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a special Judge under this Act unless he is, or has been, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898). From a perusal of this section it is clear that Section 162 or 163 do not form part of the section and no trial under the said Act will be valid for an offence under the above sections. Only Sections 161 and 163 are 165A of the Indian Penal Code are mentioned and therefore I think the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is correct and the conviction cannot stand.
(3.) THE next question is as to whether this case should be sent back for trial to a Magistrate under the ordinary law. In one sense the matter is quite serious but the accused himself was not a member of the Panchayati Adalat and secondly he has already had one trial before the sessions court and he had to come here in appeal to have his conviction set aside. I do not think at this stage a fresh trial should be ordered.;