TEJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, Tej Bahadur Singh, Jang Bahadur Singh and Raj Narain Singh, were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506, Penal Code, by Opposite Party No. 3, the panchayati Adalat of Sarai Haidar Shah, pergana Amethi, district Sultanpur, on a complaint made before the Panchayati Adalat by Data Din Dhobi opposite party No. 1 and sentenced to fines of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 10/- each for the two offences respectively. After the conviction by the panchayati Adalat, the petitioners moved a revision before opposite party No. 2, the sub-Divisional Magistrate of Amethi but that revision was dismissed. The petitioners, consequently, moved this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of their conviction.

(2.) THE first point, that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the provisions relating to trial of criminal cases by a Panchayati Adalat under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, are ultra vires of the legislature inasmuch as the U. P. Legislature had no power to legislate on this subject. Learned counsel referred to the preamble of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act which is as follows :

(3.) THE second ground, on which learned counsel contended that these provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, are void, is that they infringe the fundamental right guaranteed by article 14 of the Constitution. This argument was based on two contentions : One was that the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act relating to trial of criminal offences by Panchayati adalats, brought about discrimination between people who might have committed offences in rural areas where the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act is applicable and others committing the same offences in the neighbouring areas to which that Act is not applicable. It was submitted that an occasion may arise when some offence is committed by some person within a municipal area to which the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act does not apply and the same offence is committed by another person outside the municipal area, though within a few yards from it, to which the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act is applicable, and the effect of the U. P. Panchayat raj Act would be that the latter would be tried according to the procedure laid down by the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act whereas the former would be tried in accordance with the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure. The second point was that the procedure, laid down in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act for trial of criminal cases, curtailed some of the rights which were granted to an accused who might be tried under the Code of Criminal Procedure and, further, that the rules of evidence applicable to a trial under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act were also less favourable than those applicable to a trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This argument was urged with reference to Section 83 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which lays down that the Code of Criminal Procedure and the indian Evidence Act shall not apply to trials by Panchayati Adalats under that Act and that the procedure and the rules of evidence applicable to such trials would be laid down in that Act itself or in the rules framed thereunder. It cannot be denied that the effect of Section 83, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, is to discriminate between a person tried under the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and another person who may be tried under the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which trial the Indian Evidence Act would also be applicable. It is however, not every discrimination that makes a statute void under article 14 of the Constitution. In the case of , ---'the State of West Bengal v. Anwar All Sarkar', air 1952 SC 75 (A), on which learned counsel has mainly placed reliance in support of his contention, Mahajan, J. has held as follows :