Judgment Jamuar, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari. The point raised in support of this application involves the true interpretation of Sections 58 and 59, Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (7 of 1948). 2. The petitioners were tried by a bench of the Gram Cutchery of Ajgara in the sub-division of Barh constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 , and have been convicted under Sec.323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay fines. 3. It was argued by Mr. Ramanand Sinha that the order passed by the Gram Cutchery is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Gram Cutchery omitted to observe the provisions of Sec. 58, Panchayat Raj Act before proceeding to try the case. 4. Sec. 58, Panchayat Raj Act provides that a bench of the Gram Cutchery, while hearing a Suit or trying a case under the provisions of this Act, other than a case arising out of a non-compoundable offence, shall, after giving such notice to the parties and in such manner as it thinks fit, endeavour to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties, and for this purpose the bench shall, in such manner as it thinks fit and without delay, investigate the suit or case and all matters affecting the merits thereof and the right settlement thereof, and in so doing may do all such lawful things as it thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement; and where such a settlement is brought about, the bench shall record the same and give its decision accordingly. The provision contained in this section is, to my mind, clear enough. The intention of the Legislature certainly was that, before a Gram Cutchery proceeds to hear a suit or try a case, it shall do all that lies within its powers to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties, and if such a settlement be not possible then and then only the Gram Cutchery should proceed to hear a suit or try a case. Unless a Gram Cutchery complies with the provision of this section, it has no jurisdiction to proceed to hear a suit or try a case. Unless a Gram Cutchery complies with the provision of this section, it has no jurisdiction to proceed to hear a suit or try a case. The learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the State, contended that, if a Gram Cutchery does not comply with the provision of Sec. 58, it does not lose its jurisdiction to proceed to hear a suit or try a case, as, even in the course of the hearing of the suit or the trial of the case, it may try for an amicable Settlement in compoundable cases. The offence which the petitioners were alleged to have committed in the present case was a compoundable one, and it was suggested by the learned Government Pleader that, this being so, it could have been compounded even after the trial of the case had commenced, and, even if the Gram Cutchery did not choose to make an attempt to bring about an amicable settlement in a compoundable offence at any stage, that would be a mere irregularity without affecting its jurisdiction. It is not possible to accept this contention by reason of the further provision contained in the very next section, namely, Sec. 59. Sec. 59 provides that where a bench of the Gram Cutchery does not succeed in bringing about an amicable settlement under the preceding section, or otherwise takes up the hearing or trial of a suit or case, it shall make an enquiry, receive such evidence as it considers necessary and record its judgment. Clearly, to my mind, what is enacted in the section is that the Gram Cutchery shall proceed to make an enquiry or receive evidence in the case only if it has first endeavoured and has failed in its endeavour in bringing about an amicable settlement under Section 58. Where, therefore, a bench of a Gram Cutchery fails first to endeavour ,to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties in a compoundable offence, it can have no jurisdiction to proceed to try the case. This view finds ample support from the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of - Nivas Singh V/s. Amar Sao -. Furthermore the view finds support also from Rule 13(1), Bihar Gram Cutchery Rules, 1949, framed under Sub-section (2) of Section 80, Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. This view finds ample support from the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of - Nivas Singh V/s. Amar Sao -. Furthermore the view finds support also from Rule 13(1), Bihar Gram Cutchery Rules, 1949, framed under Sub-section (2) of Section 80, Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Rule 13(1) is as follows: If the bench does not succeed in bringing about an amicable settlement between the parties, the bench shall proceed with the hearing of the suit or the case from day to day until the hearing thereof is finished. In exceptional circumstances, such as occasioned by the illness of the accused or absence of any material witness, the hearing of the case may be adjourned. This rule also, in my view, clearly provides that the bench of a Gram Cutchery can only proceed with the hearing of a suit or a case if it has failed to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties. 5 In these circumstances, the bench of the Gram Cutchery, having failed to comply with the provision of Sec. 58 before proceeding to try the case, has proceeded without jurisdiction. I would, accordingly, hold that the trial of the petitioners was without jurisdiction, and quash their conviction and the sentence imposed upon them. Sahai, J. 6 I agree.