H.N.Kapoor, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been field by Markandey Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the proceeding against him in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chunar in case no. 228 of 1973 be quashed. Proceedings had been started against him on the basis of an application made by Lallan singh, a newly elected Paradhan before the Sub-divisional Magistrate Chunar at Mirzapur complaining that Markandey Singh being the old Pradhan had not handed over registers etc. of the Gram Sabha while handing over charge to Lallan Singh and as such committed an offence punishable under Section 14-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. This section was added by section 6 of the Amending Act III of 1973. ON that application the Sub-divisional Magistrate ordered the Station Officer concerned to register a case and investigate. After investigation, the Station Officer had submitted a charge sheet on the basis of which the sub-divisional Magistrate proceeded.
(2.) ONE of the grounds urged is that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the Station Officer to register the case and that it amounts to taking cognizance of the case under Section 190 (a) Cr.P.C. and that the entire proceedings are vitiated because even the statement of the complainant had not been recorded. In my opinion, cognizance of this case was not taken under Section 190 (a) but under Section 190 (b) Cr.P.C. The Sub-divisional Magistrate under his supervisory powers (apart from the powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure) had ordered the Station Officer to register the case and investigate. The application sent to the Station Officer by the Sub-divisional Magistrate was treated to be a first information report. Inspite of this order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, it was open to the investigating officer to have submitted a final report after investigation. Cognizance of this case, therefore, had been ultimately taken under Section 190 (b) of the code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also objected to the filing of the counter affidavit in this case by Lallan Singh and not by the Sub-divisional Magistrate himself who was made a party or by any person on behalf of the State. Lallan Singh had not been made a party to the petition. The Assistant Govt. Advocate has made a statement that he adopts the counter affidavit on behalf of the State. In fact, it was at the instance of Lallan Singh that the proceedings started. He was thus a person interested. I see no reason why he had no right to file the counter affidavit. Most of the facts alleged in the affidavit are, in fact, within the personal knowledge of Lallan Singh and none else.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Section 52 (f) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act any offence under the Act of the rules framed thereunder is to be tried by the Nyaya Panchayat and as such the offence under Section 14-A of the Act too should have been tried by the Nyaya Panchayat. According to him, it was a different matter that the Nyaya Panchayat itself might have ultimately transferred the case to the court of the competent jurisdiction under Section 58 in case it felt that adequate punishment could not be awarded.;