Hirdai Narain Seth,J. - (1.) On 20.8.1974 Petitioner No. 1, who was at the relevant time Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Partapur, filed a complaint before the Nyaya Panchayat alleging that Kishori and Sheeshpal, Respondents No. 3 and 4, in the writ petition, had committed theft of certain fertilizer belonging to the Gaon Sabha value whereof was about Rs. 50/ -. The Nyaya Panchayat, after taking into consideration the evidence produced before it came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the two Respondents was not made out. It accordingly, vide its order dated 31.3.1975, acquitted both the Respondents. Petitioner No. 1 then filed a revision Under Sec. 89 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad who dismissed the revision with the observation that in view of the amended provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revision Under Sec. 89 filed by the Petitioner, was not maintainable. Aggrieved, Petitioner No. 1 Baboo Singh and the Gaon Sabha of village Partapur, have approached this Court for relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we have no manner of doubt that the order dated 18.6.1976 passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate holding that in view of the provision contained in the amended Code of Criminal Procedure he had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision filed by Baboo Singh, is absolutely erroneous. The question whether a revision application was maintainable before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate was to be decided in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 89 of the U.P. Panchayat Rai Act and not in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Of course, before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate decided to interfere with the order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat he had to be satisfied on the material on the record either that some injustice or material irregularity had occurred. The reason given by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate in the impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable.
(3.) However, considering the petty nature of the offence and the fact that the said offence is alleged to have been committed as far back as the year 1974, we do not think that this is a fit case in which we should exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and direct the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Ghaziabad to reconsider the matter on merits.;