J.K. Tandon, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 2-6-1956 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Soram, district Allahabad in connection with a case under section 323, IPC, and section 24, Cattle Trespass Act started before the Panchayati Adalat Jalalpur, police station Mau Aima, district Allahabad, against the applicants at the instance of opposite party No. 3.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows. Smt. Shukhrani filed a complaint in July 1955 before the Panchayati Adalat Jalalpur against the applicants under section 323, IPC, and section 24, Cattle Trespass Act. Thereafter a bench consisting of five persons of whom Basdeo was the chairman was constituted for the hearing and decision of this case. The petitioners allegation is that the said bench after ascertaining documentary and oral evidence fixed 25-10-1955 for delivery of judgment. They therefore, attended the Panchayati Adalat on the appointed date but were informed that the file relating to the case had been taken away by the Sarpanch of the Panchayati Adalat, Shri Shitla Prasad. The result was that the judgment was not pronounced. The applicants' allegations further are that they met the Sarpanch who, to their great surprise, asked them to pay him Rs. 50 and that in case of failure threatened them that another bench would be constituted to try the case. It is also alleged that four out of the five Panches excluding Basdeo Sarpanch had actually prepared and signed the judgment and handed it over to Shri Shitla Prasad for being sealed and pronounced, but Shitla Prasad instead of pronouncing it, threw it away because of their refusing to pay him Rs. 50. It is again alleged that the applicants then made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Soram, requesting him to send for the file and to take appropriate action against Shitla Prasad for demanding illegal gratification, etc. On this application the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by his order dated 2-6-1956 rejected the applicants' contention that the judgment had actually been prepared and directed that the particular case be tried by a fresh bench to be constituted for the purpose. It is against this order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the present petition has been directed.
(3.) The grounds urged are that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted illegally and erroneously in holding that the judgment prepared by four out of the five members of the bench was inoperative in law, in view of Sections 77A and R. 100 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act. Another ground taken is that the action of Shimla Prasad in demanding illegal gratification was illegal and improper; and lastly, that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the Panchayati Adalat. In this connection the learned counsel for the applicants has relied on section 85 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, as it was prior to its amendment by the UP Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 1955. The unamended section authorised a Sub Divisional Magistrate to cancel the jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalat or to quash any order passed by it. There was no provision, according to the learned counsel, under section 85 then authorising the Sub Divisional Magistrate to remand the case for retrial by another bench of the Panchayati Adalat.;