ORDER Shiv dayal, J. I referred the following questions for decision by the Division Bench: (1) Can an accused be tried by an ordinary Court of criminal jurisdiction for any of the offences enumerated in Section 75 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, Act No. 58 of 1949 and the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat to try such an offence under Section 75 of the Act is not exclusive? (2) If it is held that the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts is not taken away by sections 75 and 77 of the Act, must such a case be ordinarily tried by a Nyaya Panchayat, and what are the considerations on which a Court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction can prefer to try the accused itself? I must confess that at the time of making this reference I was laid away by the English Translation of Section 77 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act No. 58 of 1949 as given in Shri Dubey's book-"The Madhya Bharat Panohayat Vidhan" which reads thus: If at any stage of proceedings in a criminal case pending before a Magistrate it appears that the case is triable by a Nyaya Panchayat, he shall at once transfer the case to that Nyaya Panchayat, which shall try the case de novo. I was under the impression that the book before me contained the enactment (in parallel columns-Hindi and English) as passed by the Legislature; and, in view of Article 348(3) of the Constitution, the English version prevailed. Now it is revealed that what I had thought to be English version of the Act is really a translation by the author of that book. I have underlined the word 'triable' in the above translation. In the original Hindi text of the enactment the words used are "Kisi Samai Bhi........ Nyaya Panchayat Ko Karna Chahiye". The Hindi version quoted by me above when rendered into English would read thus: When at any time it appears that the case should be tried by a Nyaya Panchayat............. I have underlined the word 'triable' in the above translation. In the original Hindi text of the enactment the words used are "Kisi Samai Bhi........ Nyaya Panchayat Ko Karna Chahiye". The Hindi version quoted by me above when rendered into English would read thus: When at any time it appears that the case should be tried by a Nyaya Panchayat............. Since it is not a correct translation to use the word 'triable' for the expression "SUNWAI KAKNA CHAHIYE" and, in my opinion, the correct translation is "Should be tried", this reference has to be answered on a true construction of the words, "whenever it appears that the case should be tried by, a Nyaya Panchayat, he shall at once transfer the case to the Nyaya Panchayat, which shall try the case de novo" in Section 77 of the Act. It is to be considered whether the expression "should be tried" connotes: (1) That the Court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction, before whom the case is pending, shall first apply his mind and transfer it to the Panchayat only when he considers it to be a fit case for being tried by a Nyaya Panchayat, or otherwise, try the offence himself; or (2) That no question of discretion arises and the Magistrate is bound to transfer it to the competent Nyaya Panchayat as soon as it discovers that it is triable by it, that is, the requirements of Sections 75 and 83 are met. In other words, the expression 'should be tried' should be read as 'triable'. The first has been laid down by Dixit J. in the decisions reported in A.I.R. 1953 M.B. 89 : 1953 M.B.L.J. 225 : 1956 M.B.L.J. 1138, while the second one has found favour with Nevaskar J. in the decision reported in 1953 M.L.R. 11 Cr. In the first place, it must be remembered that while construing a provision of taw relating to jurisdiction of Courts, that construction should be favoured which does not oust the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts. A provision taking away the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts is, therefore, to be strictly construed. It is different when by an express provision such jurisdiction, is barred. It is well settled that where the meaning of an expression used in an enactment is plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to it. A provision taking away the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts is, therefore, to be strictly construed. It is different when by an express provision such jurisdiction, is barred. It is well settled that where the meaning of an expression used in an enactment is plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to it. It is also an established rule of interpretation of statutes that when a provision admits of two constructions, the Court should lean towards that which does not allow the object of the law to be defeated and, further, which does not lead to absurd or anomalous results. Admittedly Section 77 does not in terms take away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Here the language employed is not as "no complaint shall be filed before a Magistrate in the following cases", or "notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment..." Nor even do we find in Section 77 that emphatic phraseology as is employed in Section 14 of the Act. I will first consider whether the object of the law is defeated if the first construction is adopted. The object of the Act, as stated in the preamble, is to provide for "Local Self-Government in the rural areas----.....by Panchayat". Chapter VII deals with Nyaya Panchayats. Certain civil matters and certain offences are placed within the Jurisdiction of Nyaya Panchayats. It is abundantly clear from Section 79 and Section 83 that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is not completely taken away by Section 77 of the Act in respect of offences listed in Section 75. Thus concurrent jurisdiction is not ruled out by the Act itself. At the most this could be said to be a conditional curtailment without repeal of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Magistrate. IF the object of the law is to afford opportunity to Nyaya Panchayats for deciding judicial matters, that object is not defeated by concurrent jurisdiction in the Nyaya Panchayat and the Magistrate. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the first interpretation does not defeat the object of the Act. It is then to be seen whether that interpretation leads to any absurd results. A number of hypothetical cases were placed before us for consideration. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the first interpretation does not defeat the object of the Act. It is then to be seen whether that interpretation leads to any absurd results. A number of hypothetical cases were placed before us for consideration. It is the peculiarity of this Act that while in Section 75 a list of offences is given, which are all simple by nature, yet in Section 79 the Nyaya Panchayat has been empowered to return the complaint to the Complainant directing him to file it before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction to try that case. It is true that this power is qualified and it is to be exercised only when one or more of the three conditions enumerated in the section exist. All the same the enactment has envisaged circumstances where a Nyaya Panchayat would not try the case or continue the trial. The other side of the picture is that if a case is instituted before a Magistrate, he may try the case himself, in exercise of his powers under the Criminal Procedure Code, or if he thinks fit, transfer the case to a Nyaya Panchayat provided the offence is cognizable by the latter. Existence of concurrent jurisdiction is not repugnant to our legal system. We know of several instances where more Courts than one may try the same offence and the prosecution has the choice to institute the proceedings before one of them. Thus I find that the first interpretation does not lead to any absurdity or anomaly. Having reached those conclusions Section 77 can safely be construed to mean what its apparent meaning indicates. Etymologically the expression "shall be tried" is not synonymous with "triable". A case may be 'triable' by a Nyaya Panchayat yet the Magistrate may not be of the opinion that it 'should be tried' by it. It comes to this that the ease must be triable by a Nyaya Panchayat and, further, the Magistrate should be of opinion that the case should be tried by the Nyaya Panchayat. Then he shall at once transfer it to the latter. It is Worthwhile to examine the provisions of the Act in the existing background of the legislation and also to compare Section 77 to Section 74 of the Act. Then he shall at once transfer it to the latter. It is Worthwhile to examine the provisions of the Act in the existing background of the legislation and also to compare Section 77 to Section 74 of the Act. Section 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act No. XXVI of 1947 provides: If at any stage of the proceedings in a criminal case pending before a Magistrate it appears that the case is triable by a Panchayat Adalat he shall at once transfer the case to the Panchayat Adalat which shall try the case de novo. There the word 'triable' is need. If in the Madhya Bharat Act the word 'triable' ("'SUNWAI KE YOGYA HAI" or "SUNA JA SAKTA HAI" Or "NYAY PANCHAYAT SUNWAI KAR SAKTI HAI") had been used there would have been ho possibility(sic) of any other construction than the second one. However, in its wisdom the Madhya Bharat Legislature did not use that word. The words 'at once' which are used both in the Uttar Pradesh Act and in the Madhya Bharat Act are not decisive of the problem in hand. No inconsistency follows if the first interpretation is accepted. So far as the Madhya Bharat Act is concerned the expression "at once" comes into play only after the Magistrate thinks that the case "should be tried" by a Nyaya Panchayat. In the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayat Act, 1946, Sections 71 and 72 are in very emphatic words. They provide: Every criminal complaint under this Act shall be instituted in the Nyaya Panchayat within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. If a complaint of any offence mentioned in the schedule be made to a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall, subject to the provisions of Section 73 and the Rules made under this Act, instead of taking cognizance of the offence direct the complainant to present the complaint to the Nyaya Panchayat within -whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. Thus the language being plain enough, the provision is mandatory and not discretionary. There is not possibility of any other interpretation. Section 75 of the Madhya Bharat Act gives a list of the offences which are cognizable by Nyaya Panchayats. Section 80 bars the jurisdiction of a Nyaya Panchayat in certain circumstances notwithstanding that the offence may be cognizable by it and Section 83 fixes the time limit for the institution of a complaint before the Nyaya Panchayat. Section 75 of the Madhya Bharat Act gives a list of the offences which are cognizable by Nyaya Panchayats. Section 80 bars the jurisdiction of a Nyaya Panchayat in certain circumstances notwithstanding that the offence may be cognizable by it and Section 83 fixes the time limit for the institution of a complaint before the Nyaya Panchayat. Adverting to civil matters the analogous provisions are Section 66, which describes suits which in their nature are cognisable by a Nyaya Panchayat; Sections 70 and 73 which bar the jurisdiction of a Nyaya Panchayat in certain circumstances although the suit may be cognizable by it and Section 72 which fixes the limitation within which a suit has to be filed before a Nyaya Panchayat. While we have similarity in these provisions relating to criminal and civil matters respectively, the provisions in regard to their effect on the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts have been very differently worked. When rendered into English they read thus: Section 74. If a plaint of a civil suit within If at any stage of proceedings in a the jurisdiction of a NyayaPanehayat is criminal case pending before a Magis-presented in a civil Court the Judge trateit appears that the case should be presiding that Court shall return the tried by a NyayaPanchayathe shall at plaint for being presented in the Nyaya once transfer the case to that Nyaya Panchayat which has jurisdiction to try Panchayat, which shall try the case the suit denovo. A comparison of the two Sections makes it transparent that unlike civil suits, the intention of the law-makers was not to oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate even though the case may be cognizance by a Nyaya Panchayat. I do not mean to say that where different words are employed in two different sections of the same Act they must necessarily mean something different. I am not laying down any" such general proposition; that would run counter to what their Lordship of the Supreme Court have laid down. The result of this discussion is that the first interpretation is the correct one and it does not in any way come in conflict with the established rules of interpretation, the object of the law, or the intention of the law-makers nor does it lead to any anomaly or absurdity. The result of this discussion is that the first interpretation is the correct one and it does not in any way come in conflict with the established rules of interpretation, the object of the law, or the intention of the law-makers nor does it lead to any anomaly or absurdity. Correct law was laid down by Dixit J. in Surajmal v. State AIR 1953 M B 89. In Babu v. State (1) Nevaskar J. has no doubt taken a contrary view, but it seems that the learned Judge's attention was not limited to the various aspects of the matter and it was not considered whether the other interpretation was correct. That has deprived me of the benefit of knowing the reason for which Nevaskar J. took that view. On these premises my answer to the first question is that Section 77 does not take away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try an offence falling within the purview of Section 75 of the Act. It is not imperative for him to transfer such a case as soon as it appears that the case is triable by a Nyaya Panchayat. He may try it himself or transfer it to the latter. 19. This brings me to the second question referred. In my opinion, no hard and fast rule can be stated which will govern the discretion of the Magistrate. There may a variety of circumstances for which the Magistrate may prefer to try the case himself. However, it seems to me that: (1) If it appears that the circumstances of the case attract any of the conditions (b) or (c) contained in Section 79 of the Act, the Magistrate would try the case himself rather than transfer it to the Nyaya Panchayat, leaving it to the latter to return the complaint. (2) If it appears to the Magistrate that there are any other special circumstances for which in the interest of justice the case should not be tried by the Nyaya Panchayat having jurisdiction, he may try it himself. (3) Ordinarily, in the absence of any such special circumstances, the case should be transferred to the Nyaya Panchayat. In other words, transfer should be the rule, trial by himself an exception. I wish to record my thanks to Shri J.P. Gupta who appeared amicus curiae and assisted us with his arguments. Reference answered. A.H. Khan, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed