DEBABRATA MOOKERJEE, J. - (1.) THESE two petitioners were tried before the Banibon Union Bench in the district: of Howrah upon a charge under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. There was an additional charge under Section 504 of the Code against petitioner No. 1 Kalipada Das. under Section 447, the two petitioners were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15/ - each. In default of payment of the fines under that section, the petitioner Kalipada Das was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days while petitioner Chittaranjan Das was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five days. under Section 504 petitioner Kalipada was; further convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/ -, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days.
(2.) THERE was an application under Section 71 of the Bengal Village Self -Government Act 1919 and the Additional District Magistrate, Howrah -set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner Kalipada Das under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, but affirmed the convictions and sentences under Section 447 of the Code on the two petitioners, who thereafter applied to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and obtained the present rule. The prosecution case shortly stated was that the petitioners had trespassed on the homestead land of the complainant Kiron Bala Dassi and that the petitioner Kalipada had, in addition, abused her. She protested against the high handedness of the petitioners, but the latter touch no notice of her protest. The Bench believed the evidence that was adduced before it and convicted and sentenced the petitioners is stated above.
(3.) IT Is contended in the first; place that the rules for the conduct of business before the Union Bench were not complied with and this rule led to a failure of Justice, It is said that only one of the several members composing of the Bench held a local inspection and his report was acted upon for the purpose of finding the petitioners guilty of the offences charged. It is said that this contravened Rule 4 of the Rules made under the Village Self -Government Act which reads as follows: The Bench or Court may at any stage of the case or suit hold local enquiry in respect of any matter in dispute between the parties. The word 'Bench' does not appear to have been defined, but Section 65 says: Whenever a Union Board has been established for any Union, the Local Government may, by notification, appoint any two or more of the members of the Board to be a Union Bench, during their term of office as members of the Board, for the trial, in the whole or any part of the Union, of the offences specified in Sch. IV,' if committed within the limits of its jurisdiction or if the case is transferred to the Bench by a District Magistrate or Sub -Divisional Magistrate. It is thus argued that the Bench would mean two or more members constituting,the Bench, In the present case, only one member held the inspection and made a report which was taken into account for the purpose of finding the petitioners guilty. This seems to me to be an illegality and I think there is substance in the contention that this non -compliance is not a mere irregularity which can be left unnoticed.;